Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

C 301/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 6.11.

2010

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ for of the Commission decision of 3 June 2010, communicated
goods in Classes 32 and 33 — application No 4630562. by letter of 21 June 2010, in which the Commission
informed the applicants that it intended to take no action in
regard to their complaint against the Fédération Luxembour­
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: geoise de Football (FLF), based on Articles 45 and 101 TFEU,
Pfizer Inc. concerning the FLF rules preventing the applicants from taking
part in certain football matches if the number of foreign players
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community work mark appearing on the match sheet is greater than a number laid
‘VIAGRA’ for goods in Class 5. down in the FLF rules;

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.


In support of their action, the applicants put forward two pleas
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition in law alleging:
Division annulled and trade mark application rejected in its
entirety.

— an infringement of Article 45 TFEU, inasmuch as the obli­


Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation gation currently laid down in the FLF rules to place, on the
No 207/2009 (1) on account of an incorrect methodology for official match sheet, seven players who had obtained their
assessment of the connection between the marks and flawed first licence in Luxembourg and the prohibition on placing,
findings in relation to the risk of exploitation of the repute and on the same match sheet, more than four players transferred
image of the trade mark cited in opposition. during the sporting year constitutes direct discrimination
preventing a national of a Member State from exercising
an economic activity in Luxembourg territory. The
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the applicants also claim that, in so far as the FLF rules
Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1). constitute, not direct discrimination, but indirect discrimi­
nation, the objectives invoked by the FLF, namely, that its
purpose is to promote the game of football as an amateur
sport, are unfounded and cannot therefore be regarded as
Action brought on 20 August 2010 — F91 Diddeléng and legitimate objectives. The restrictions are therefore dispro­
Others v Commission portionate compared to the objective invoked.

(Case T-341/10)

(2010/C 301/55)
— an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, inasmuch as the FLF
Language of the case: French must be regarded as an association of undertakings
infringing competition law, and more particularly, Article
Parties 101 TFEU, in so far as the restrictions on the number of
foreign players have economic consequences for profes­
Applicants: F91 Diddeléng (Dudelange, Luxembourg), Julien sional sportsmen and adversely affect competition between
Bonnetaud (Yutz, France), Thomas Gruszczynski (Amnéville, Luxembourg football clubs.
France), Rainer Hauck (Maxdorf, Allemagne), Stéphane Martine
(Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Grégory Molnar (Moyeuvre-
Grande, France) and Yann Thibout (Algrange, France) (repre­
sented by: L. Misson, C. Delrée and G. Ernes, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission


Action brought on 25 August 2010 — Portuguese Republic
v Commission
Form of order sought
(Case T-345/10)
— Annul the contested decision of the European Commission,
adopted on 3 June 2010; (2010/C 301/56)

Language of the case: Portuguese


— Annul the rules which are contrary to Articles 45 and 101
TFEU; Parties
Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez
— Impose any appropriate sanction. Fernandes and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents, assisted by M.
Figueiredo, lawyer)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants (Dudelange football club and the non-
Luxembourg players employed by that club) seek annulment Defendant: European Commission
6.11.2010 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/33

Form of order sought (h) breach of the principle of equality and the principle of
protection of legitimate expectations and error as to the
— Primarily: financial consequences to be drawn from the infringement
of the Community rules;
annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 final of
29 June 2010 concerning the application of financial
corrections to assistance from EAGGF Guidance to the oper­ (i) breach of the principle of proportionality.
ational programme CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal —
National Objective 1 programme) for the measure
‘Investments in agricultural holdings’, which reduced by
EUR 16 411 829,46 the contribution of EAGGF Guidance (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
to the expenditure awarded under Commission Decision down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161,
C(2000) 2878 of 30 October 2000, under the operational p. 1).
programme CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal — National (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support
for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and
Objective 1 programme); and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regu­
lations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002
— In the alternative: laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ
1. annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 final L 2002 74, p. 1).
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying
of 29 June 2010, in so far as it relates to Community down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation
financing of the expenditure incurred by the Portuguese (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems
Republic regarding applications approved between 28 for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63,
October 2003 and November 2006, which amount to p. 21)
EUR 194 347 574,29;

2. annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 final


of 29 June 2010, in so far as it relates to Community Appeal brought on 25 August 2010 by the European
financing of the expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service
Republic regarding applications referring to ‘investments Tribunal delivered on 15 June 2010 in Case F-35/08
in agricultural holdings’ associated with the setting-up of Pachtitis v Commission
young farmers, which amount to EUR 94 621 812,06.
(Case T-361/10 P)

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs. (2010/C 301/57)

Language of the case: Greek


Pleas in law and main arguments
Parties
The appellant invokes the following grounds of appeal:
Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and
I. Khatzigiannis)
(a) infringement of Article 250 TFUE and lack of competence;

Other party to the proceedings: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens,


(b) infringement of Article 39(3) of Council Regulation (EC) Greece), supported by the European Data Protection Supervisor
No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999, (1)

(c) retroactive application of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation Form of order sought by the appellant
(EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999, (2)
The appellant claims that the General Court should:

(d) infringement of Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)


No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002, (3) — set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15
June 2010 in Case F-35/08 Pachtitis v Commission;

(e) infringement of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC)


No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001, (4) — refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for exam­
ination of the other pleas in support of annulment;
(f) infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1257/99;

— order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at


(g) breach of the principle of equality; first instance and on appeal.