CELEX: C2004/021/87
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-383/03: Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union

24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/43
—     initiated the formal investigation procedure under                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to three cases
      of alleged aid consisting in an increase of capital of EUR
      736 million, with an issue premium of EUR 586 million,
      and of two subsequent injections of EUR 105 million and              The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation
      EUR 50 million respectively by way of issue premia;                  1480/2003 of 11 August 2003 imposing a definitive
                                                                           countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional
—     rejects the arguments of the Kingdom of Spain, based on              duty imposed on imports of certain electronic microcircuits
      Article 296 of the EC Treaty, thus ruling out the specific           known as DRAMs (dynamic random access memories) orig-
      procedures provided for by Article 198(1) and (2);                   inating in the Republic of Korea (1).
—     questions, according to the applicant, whether certain aid
      authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation to
                                                                           With its first two pleas, the applicant contests the finding that
      which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered
                                                                           it failed to cooperate. According to the applicant, the defendant
      additional aid, is compatible with Community law.
                                                                           disregarded the Arthur Andersen report determining the
                                                                           applicant’s liquidation value and the affidavit submitted by
                                                                           Citibank. The applicant invokes in that regard a violation of
The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied upon              Article 28 of Council Regulation 2026/97 (2), Articles 12 and
in Case T-381/03 IZAR.                                                     22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
                                                                           Measures, the principle of proportionality and a manifest error
                                                                           of assessment.
In particular, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 88,
296 and 298 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as, since the Kingdom
of Spain had previously and expressly invoked the exception
provided for in Article 296(1)(b) of the Treaty, the Commission            The applicant furthermore submits that the findings of the
had power to initiate not the procedure under Article 88(2)                defendant that several specific measures conferred a benefit on
but only certain of the specific procedures under Article 298.             the applicant infringe Article 2 of Regulation 2026/97,
                                                                           Article 1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
                                                                           Countervailing Measures and amount to a manifest error of
                                                                           assessment of the relevant facts.
                                                                           The applicant also claims that the findings that the KDB
                                                                           debenture programme (3) was specific to the applicant infringe
Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semicon-                       Article 3 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 1.2 and 2 of the
  ductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union                    WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
                                                                           and amount to a manifest error of assessment of the relevant
                                                                           facts.
                         (Case T-383/03)
                          (2004/C 21/87)
                                                                           The applicant continues by submitting that in calculating the
                                                                           amount of the benefit of several specific measures, the
                                                                           defendant infringed Articles 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation
                                                                           2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings, Articles 14, 22
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                 and annex I(j) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Communities on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor                     Countervailing Measures. In this respect, the applicant also
Inc., Kyoungi-Do, Korea represented by Marco Bronckers, Yves               claims that the defendant committed a manifest error of
Van Gerven, Axel Gutermuth and Axel Desmedt lawyers with                   assessment and infringed Article 253 EC.
an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant also contests the defendant’s findings that
                                                                           subsidised imports from the Republic of Korea caused material
                                                                           injury to the Community’s industry of DRAM producers.
—     declare the Definitive Regulation annulled in its entirety,          According to the applicant, these findings infringe Articles 1,
      or at least partially, in so far as it concerns imports into         8, 11 and 15 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 15, 19 and 22
      the European Community of products manufactured by                   of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
      Hynix Semiconductor Inc.;                                            Measures and amount to manifest errors of assessment. The
                                                                           applicant also claims that the defendant committed a violation
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.               of Article 253 EC in this regard.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/44                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
Finally, the applicant submits that in calculating the                      Pleas in law and main arguments
countervailing duty, the defendant infringed Articles 5 and 7
of Regulation 2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of
the amount of the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings,               Applicant for regis-         Europortal Italia SpA, succeeded
Articles 14 and 19 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and                    tration of the Com-          by the applicant.
Countervailing Measures, and committed a manifest error of                  munity trade mark:
assessment.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Word mark ‘Jumpy’ — regis-
                                                                            sought:                      tration application No 1.332.006,
(1) OJ L 212 of 22 August 2003, p. 1.                                                                    registration sought in respect of a
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on                                              number of goods in Classes 9 and
    protection against subsidized imports from countries not mem-
    bers of the European Community (OJ L 288, p. 1).
                                                                                                         16.
(3) See recital 48 and following of the contested decision.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Microarea SpA.
                                                                            sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                            sition proceedings:
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        Italian word mark ‘Jump’ for
                                                                            opposition:                  goods in Classes 9 and 16.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition upheld and appli-
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive                       sition Division:             cation rejected.
Italiane — RTI against the Office for Harmonisation in
  the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                            Appeal:
                           (Case T-384/03)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                                         of Regulation No 40/94 (‘likeli-
                            (2004/C 21/88)                                                               hood of confusion’).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive Italiane — RTI, rep-                    Action brought on 25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc
resented by Giorgio Floridia and Raffaella Floridia, lawyers.               against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Microarea SpA was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.                                                                                    (Case T-387/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (2004/C 21/89)
—     annul the decision of 11 September 2003 of the First
      Board of Appeal; or                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
—     in the alternative, interpret the decision of the Opposition
      Division No 2637/2002 of 30 August 2002 on Oppo-
      sition No B321994 to the effect that it does not preclude             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the valid registration of the trade mark ‘Jumpy’ to                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      distinguish it from the similarly-named Internet portal;              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc., Beverley, Massachu-
—     make an order pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of               setts, USA, represented by Dr Michael Edenborough, Barrister,
      Procedure requiring the defendant, as the unsuccessful                Mr Cerryg Jones, Ms Alexandra Brodie and Ms Carina Loweth
      party, to pay the costs.                                              Solicitors.