C 178/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union Form of order sought

29.7.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant — Declare the action admissible; Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CASTELLANI’ for goods in class 33 (alcoholic beverages except beer, liqueur, sparkling wine and Champagne) — application No 2 387 272

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MARKANT Handels- und Service GmbH

— declare the contested decision invalid to the extent the Commission did not treat sales via ASMP consistently with the treatment of those sales in the initial anti-dumping investigation of silicon from Russia, and order the European Commission to recalculate the dumping margin (and thus the amount to be refunded) accordingly;

Mark or sign cited: The national word marks ‘CASTELLUM’ for goods in class 33 (wines, with the exception of sparkling wine) and ‘CASTELLUCA’ for goods in class 33 (wines)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the application

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting marks are different and the applicant's mark can not cause confusion for German consumers.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 (1) imposed an antidumping duty on imports of silicon to the Community from two Russian exporting producers, related to the applicant: SualKremny-Urals LLC and ZAO Kremny. Because the applicant believed that the dumping margin on the basis of which antidumping duties were paid had been eliminated, it lodged three requests for reimbursement of the duties with regard to subsequent imports.

Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission

(Case T-151/06)

In the contested decision, the requests were partially granted. The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision to the extent it reflects adjustment made without justification, with the result that the calculated dumping margin is more than de minimis, and does not authorize the national customs authorities to grant the full reimbursement requested of anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant on imports of silicon originating in Russia.

(2006/C 178/66) In support of its application, the applicant invokes, first, a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Council Regulation No 384/96 (2) (the Basic Regulation), in particular Article 11(9), as well as a violation of the principle of legal certainty. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in finding that there were changed circumstances requiring it to depart from the methodology relied on in the original investigation in relation to sales made via the applicant.

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Second, the applicant invokes a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 253 EC with regard to the assessment of the existence of a single economic entity as between the applicant and the Russian factories and the adjustment for an agent´s commission.

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union — annul the contested decision;

C 178/37

Third, the applicant invokes a breach of the Basic Regulation as regards the deduction of an agent's commission, and in particular Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as last modified by Regulation No 2238/2000 (3). According to the applicant, Article 2(10)(i), as modified by Regulation No 1972/2002 (4), is not applicable since the refund procedure at hand would concern the continuation of the original procedure. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as modified by Regulation No 1972/2002.

— order the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC; — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 of 22 December 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of silicon originating Russia (OJ L 339, p. 3). (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, p. 1). (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 of 9 October 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 257, p. 2). (4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 of 5 November 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on the protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 305, p. 1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission not to pursue its investigation of the applicant's complaint relating to three kinds of subsidies to Stockholm Visitors Board AB (‘SVB’), namely: the yearly appropriations from the City of Stockholm's budget in favour of SVB, the reimbursement on a regular basis of SVB's pre-tax losses by its parent company and the preferential access to public assets for the provision of services included in the Stockholm Card. The Commission found that the measures did not constitute unlawful aid.

Action brought on 6 June 2006 — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission (Case T-152/06) (2006/C 178/67) Language of the case: English

The applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has infringed several provisions in the Treaty and Regulation No 659/1999 (1).

The applicant invokes, first, that, by not opening the formal investigation procedure, the Commission infringed Article 88(3) EC as well as Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999. According to the applicant, the Commission was aware of the existence of aid and did not have sufficient elements to establish that all measures at stake qualified as existing aid.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 86(2) EC insofar as it stated that the compensation for carrying out the tourist information activities fell within the rules on services of general economic interest. Parties Applicant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Fourth, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in the application of Article 87(1) and 88(3) EC in establishing that SVB's commercial activities were carried out under market conditions and were, therefore, not financed from state aid. The applicant submits in particular that the Commission failed to take a position in relation to the reimbursement of SVB's losses by its parent company, wholly owned by the City Council. Third, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 88 EC, as well as Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999, in stating that, if the compensation for tourist information activities was to be considered as aid, it constituted existing aid and not unlawful aid, and in any case was compatible with the common market.

Form of order sought — Declare the action admissible;

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful