T-30/03
- Súd
- Všeobecný súd Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62003TN0030
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
C 70/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.3.2003
In support of its application, the applicant contests the The applicant claims that the Court should: economic approach adopted in relation to the facts by the Commission which, on the one hand, defined as the relevant — annul the decision of 11 November 2002 of the Director market the Italian geographic market but which, on the other General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) which, hand, completely overlooked the fact that the average price of as an internal service of the Commission of the European reinforced concrete in Italy has always been, on average, less Communities, declares inadmissible the complaint lodged than that in the other States. by the Junta de Andalucía.
Furthermore, S.P. contests the use of documents by the Commission to substantiate its charges, in particular the Pleas in law and main arguments memorandum of a partner undertaking which, in the Com- mission’s view, provided useful information to understand the way in which the accused undertaking operated, without such The applicant in the present proceedings contests the rejection documents having been notified to the applicant during the of the complaint submitted by Counsellor for Agriculture and proceeding. Moreover, although the Commission was in Fisheries to the Director General of the Anti-Fraud Office possession of them, it failed to mention that it had made use (OLAF) after becoming aware of the existence of Report IO/ of such cooperation, preventing the applicant from adopting a 2000/7057 concerning the investigations carried out by OLAF position in good time in relation to the charges made against into possible irregularities in the olive oil sector in Spain, it. In that respect also, the applicant seeks the annulment of concentrating in particular on the territory of the Comunidad the decision on the ground of a serious breach of the rights of Autónoma de Andalucía. defence.
In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges: S.P. further alleges error of law, in particular the misapplication of Article 65 ECSC, claiming that the contested objections do — infringement of the principles of legality, in that OLAF’s not contain sufficient evidence to support the existence of an activities covered areas over which there is no judicial agreement or concerted practices. oversight, and of equality, inasmuch as such conduct discriminated against any legal or natural person who is not an official, agent or staff of the Community insti- Finally, S.P. further contests the methods adopted by the tutions, who alone may lodge administrative complaints Commission when determining the fines to be imposed, in against OLAF’s conduct. particular the multiplier and the increment linked to the allegedly uninterrupted duration of the alleged infringements — infringement of the fundamental right of defence. and to the alleged extreme seriousness, which has not been proven, of the infringements. — that OLAF must accept the complaint in issue by analogy with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation No 1073/ 1994, and reply to the substantive questions raised in the aforementioned complaint.
Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía against Commission of the Euro- pean Communities Action brought on 30 January 2003 by The General Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i (Case T-29/03) Danmark ‘SID’) against the Commission of the European Communities (2003/C 70/51) (Case T-30/03)
(Language of the case: Spanish) (2003/C 70/52)
(Language of the case: English) An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía, Seville (Spain), represented by Car- An action against the Commission of the European Communi- men Carretero Espinosa de los Monteros, lawyers. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
22.3.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/33
European Communities on 30 January 2003 by The General The applicant finally invokes a manifest error of assessment. Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i Dan- The applicant alleges that the Commission should have made mark ‘SID’), Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Philip an assessment of the effect of the tax exemptions have on the Bentley QC, Mr Anders Worsøe and Mr Filip Ragolle, Lawyers. employment of seafarers residing in a Member State and employed on terms and conditions which meet the high standards prevailing in the Community.
The applicant claims that the Court should: (1 ) Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ C 205 of 1997, p. 5. — annul Commission decision C(2002)4370fin of 13 Nov- ember 2002 in so far as it is decided not to raise any objections to fiscal measures that have been applied since 1 January 1989 to seafarers on board vessels registered in Denmark, either in the DAS or in the DIS registers;
— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Commission. Action brought on 31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA, P.A., S.A. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
Pleas in law and main arguments (Case T-31/03)
The applicant, the General Workers Union in Denmark, lodged (2003/C 70/53) a complaint with the Commission regarding the tax regime applied to seafarers employed on board ships registered in the Danish International Shipping register (DIS). In the contested (Language of the case: Spanish) decision, the Commission decided not to raise objections to the fiscal measures and considered that they constituted state aid, but that they were and still are compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 87 (3)(c) EC Treaty. An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2003 by GRUPO SADA, P.A., S.A., whose regis- The fiscal measures in question grant tax exemptions to all tered office is in Madrid, represented by Álvaro Aguilar De seafarers employed on board ships registered in the DIS Armas and José María Marrero Ortega. register. The Commission considered that this was in conform- ity with the Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport (1) according to which reduced rates of income tax for EC seafarers on board ships registered in a Member State The applicant claims that the Court should: are compatible with the common market. — annul the decision of the OHIM of 20 November 2002 in so far as it refuses to register ‘GRUPO SADA’ as a Community trade mark; and In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringe- ment of essential procedural requirements and the principle of good administration. The applicant alleges that the case — order OHIM to pay the costs. involved serious difficulties and that the Commission therefore should have opened an investigation pursuant to Article 88(2) EC Treaty. Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant furthermore submits a violation of Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty in conjunction with the Community Applicant for the Com- The applicant guidelines on state aid to maritime shipping and the principle munity trade mark: of legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the Commission erred by interpreting the notion of ‘EC seafarers’ The Community trade GRUPO SADA — Application as meaning any seafarer employed on board a vessel registered mark concerned: No 157545 for goods in Class- in a Member State. es 29, 31 and 35