You are on page 1of 2

C 112/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.5.

2003

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE The applicant claims that the Court should:

of 4 March 2003 — annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office of 5 December 2002 in Case No R 1072/2000-2;
in Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
of the European Communities ( 1)

(Officials — Action for annulment — Refusal to admit to


the tests of a competition — Irregularity of the prior Pleas in law and main arguments
administrative procedure — Manifest inadmissibility of the
action for annulment) Applicants for Com- F. Dann and A. Backer
munity trade mark:
(2003/C 112/62)
Community trade mark The word mark ‘HOOLIGAN’ —
sought: application No 7179 filed in
(Language of the case: French)
respect of goods in Class 25

Proprietor of mark or The applicant


In Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot, residing in L’Haye sign cited in the oppo-
les Roses (France), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an sition proceedings:
address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart Mark or sign cited in The French word mark and the
and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the opposition: international word mark ‘OLLY
rejection of the applicant’s application to take part in the tests GAN’, registered, inter alia, for
for Internal Competition COM/R/502211/01 — the Court of goods in Class 25 (clothing)
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; Decision of the Oppo- Refusal of the application for
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 March 2003, the sition Division: registration
operative part of of which is as follows:
Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs. Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of
the legal concept of likelihood of
confusion.
( 1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.02.

Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Société Provença- Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
le d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG) against the Office for Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways) against the Com-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market mission of the European Communities

(Case T-57/03) (Case T-68/03)

(2003/C 112/63) (2003/C 112/64)

(Language of the case: French) (Language of the Case: Greek)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Société European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
Provençale d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG), established in Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways), whose seat is at 96-100
Marseilles, France, represented by K. Manhaeve, lawyer, with Leoforos Singrou, 11741 Athens, Greece, represented by Denis
an address for service in Luxembourg. F. Dann and A. Backer, Waelbroek, Efthimios Bourtzalas, Julian Ellison, Matthew Hall,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, were also parties to the proceed- Andreas Kalogeropoulos, Kharis Tagaras and Aristidis Khiote-
ings before the Board of Appeal. lis, lawyers.
10.5.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/33

The applicant claims that the Court should: — The applicant further submits that the final instalment of
the State aid which had been authorised by
— annul in whole or in part, under Articles 230 EC and Decision 1999/332/EC was never paid to it, an omission
231 EC, the Commission decision of 11 December 2002 known to, and approved by, the Commission and consti-
(C(2002) 4831 final) on State aid granted by Greece to tuting an amendment of the restructuring programme to
the applicant; which the Commission had likewise agreed. On the basis
of that submission, the applicant contends that the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
— order the defendant to pay the costs. an essential procedural requirement have been breached
by the Commission which now pleads breach of the
original programme, when that programme, with the
agreement of the Commission itself, was never completed.
Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant also pleads breach of the non bis in idem
rule, arguing that the non-payment of the final instalment
of the State aid constitutes a penalty imposed by the
The applicant is an air transport company whose head office Commission, which has thus exhausted its right to
is in Athens. By the contested decision, the Commission impose penalties and is unable to go back.
declared certain restructuring aid which had been granted by
Greece to the applicant to be incompatible with the common
market within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, on the ground
that the conditions subject to which the aid had initially been
authorised by Commission Decision 1999/332/EC were no
longer met. In the decision, the Commission also declared
incompatible with the common market new State aid
implemented by Greece in favour of the applicant in the form
of tolerance of its prolonged non-payment of social security
contributions, value added tax, the airport passenger tax
known as ‘Spatosimo’ and charges and rent which were Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon Co.,
payable by it to airports. The Commission required Greece to Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communi-
take all the necessary measures to recover from the applicant ties
the abovementioned aid.

(Case T-71/03)
In support of its action, the applicant pleads:

— that the Commission committed manifest errors of (2003/C 112/65)


assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state
reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
burden of proof and infringed the right to a fair hearing
so far as concerns its conclusions that Greece failed to (Language of the case: English)
comply with certain of the undertakings entered into by
it and referred to in Decisions 1999/332/EC and 94/696/
EC. The applicant also pleads that Article 87(3)(c) EC was
infringed or misapplied in that the Commission failed
to examine sufficiently or correctly whether the aid An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
authorised in 1998 could be considered compatible with ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
that article. European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon
Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, represented by Mr Gerwin Van Gerven
— that the Commission committed manifest errors of and Mr Thomas Franchoo, Lawyers, with an address for service
assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state in Luxembourg.
reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
burden of proof, infringed the right to a fair hearing and
offended against the principle of legal certainty so far as
concerns its findings relating to the new aid purportedly The applicant claims that the Court should:
granted by Greece to the applicant in the form of
tolerance of non-payment of charges, tax and rent, as
referred to above. — annul Article 3 of the Commission decision C(2002)
5083 final of 17 December 2002 in Case COMP/E-2/
37.667 — Speciality Graphite, insofar as it imposes a fine
— that the Commission misused its powers since, in the of — 6,97 million on the applicant, or alternatively, to
applicant’s submission, the motive for the contested substantially reduce that fine; and
decision is the desire that the ‘coup de grâce’ be adminis-
tered to the applicant or at least that the applicant be
weakened. — order the Commission to pay the costs.