C 70/32

22.3.2003

Official Journal of the European Union

In support of its application, the applicant contests the economic approach adopted in relation to the facts by the Commission which, on the one hand, defined as the relevant market the Italian geographic market but which, on the other hand, completely overlooked the fact that the average price of reinforced concrete in Italy has always been, on average, less than that in the other States.

Furthermore, S.P. contests the use of documents by the Commission to substantiate its charges, in particular the memorandum of a partner undertaking which, in the Commission’s view, provided useful information to understand the way in which the accused undertaking operated, without such documents having been notified to the applicant during the proceeding. Moreover, although the Commission was in possession of them, it failed to mention that it had made use of such cooperation, preventing the applicant from adopting a position in good time in relation to the charges made against it. In that respect also, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision on the ground of a serious breach of the rights of defence.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings contests the rejection of the complaint submitted by Counsellor for Agriculture and Fisheries to the Director General of the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) after becoming aware of the existence of Report IO/2000/7057 concerning the investigations carried out by OLAF into possible irregularities in the olive oil sector in Spain, concentrating in particular on the territory of the Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía.

In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:

—infringement of the principles of legality, in that OLAF’s activities covered areas over which there is no judicial 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 institutions, who alone may lodge administrative complaints against OLAF’s conduct.

Finally, S.P. further contests the methods adopted by the Commission when determining the fines to be imposed, in particular the multiplier and the increment linked to the allegedly uninterrupted duration of the alleged infringements 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 European Communities

Action brought on 30 January 2003 by The General Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark ‘SID’) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-29/03)

(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 Communities 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 Carmen Carretero Espinosa de los Monteros, lawyers.

22.3.2003

C 70/33

Official Journal of the European Union

The applicant finally invokes a manifest error of assessment. The applicant alleges that the Commission should have made an assessment of the effect of the tax exemptions have on the 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:

—annul Commission decision C(2002)4370fin of 13 November 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)

(Case T-31/03)

(2003/C 70/53)

The applicant, the General Workers Union in Denmark, lodged 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 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.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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 registered office is in Madrid, represented by Álvaro Aguilar De Armas and José María Marrero Ortega.

The fiscal measures in question grant tax exemptions to all seafarers employed on board ships registered in the DIS register. The Commission considered that this was in conformity with the Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport according to which reduced rates of income tax for EC seafarers on board ships registered in a Member State 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

—order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes an infringement of essential procedural requirements and the principle of good administration. The applicant alleges that the case involved serious difficulties and that the Commission therefore should have opened an investigation pursuant to Article 88(2) EC Treaty.

The applicant furthermore submits a violation of Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty in conjunction with the Community guidelines on state aid to maritime shipping and the principle of legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the Commission erred by interpreting the notion of ‘EC seafarers’ as meaning any seafarer employed on board a vessel registered in a Member State.