title: Case T-239/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Paul O'Neill against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/17
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eileen Oglesby                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                             (Case T-237/03)                                         Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                            (2003/C 239/32)
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                      (Language of the case: English)                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel An
                                                                                Capall Oir to replace the MFV An Capall Ban;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Eileen Oglesby,                              ings.
Kincasslagh, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               03 (1).
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to
       replace the MFV Neptune;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.                                                                  Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Paul O’Neill against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (Case T-239/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (2003/C 239/34)
03 (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Paul O’Neill,
                                                                              Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Patrick O’Malley
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-238/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                            (2003/C 239/33)                                          Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                      (Language of the case: English)                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel, the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           MFV Paraclete;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Patrick O’Malley,
Galway, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,                —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                                 ings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/18                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         4.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Société des Produits
                                                                              Nestlé S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                                (Case T-248/03)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2003/C 239/36)
                                                                              (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: English)
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cecil Sharkey against
        the Commission of the European Communities                            An action against the 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
                             (Case T-240/03)
                                                                              30 June 2003 by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Vevey,
                                                                              Switzerland, represented by Mr J. Evrard, lawyer.
                            (2003/C 239/35)
                                                                              Grupo Kalise Menorquina, S.A. was also a party to the
                      (Language of the case: English)                         proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cecil Sharkey,
                                                                                28 April 2003;
Clogherhead, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A.
Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              —     order for payment of all costs of the proceedings against
                                                                                the OHIM.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               Pleas in law and main arguments
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for                    Applicant for the Com-         Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                   munity trade mark:
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application in respect of the MFV Endurance;                  Community trade mark           The figurative mark ‘POLO POLO’
                                                                              sought:                        (application No 803429) for
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-                                               goods in class 30 (a.o. cocoa and
       ings.                                                                                preparations having a base of
                                                                                cocoa, chocolate products, con-
                                                                                fectionery, sweets, sugar, chewing
                                                                                gum).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              Proprietor of mark or          Grupo Kalise Menorquina S.A.
                                                                              sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                              sition proceedings:
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              Mark or sign cited in          The Spanish national word mark
                                                                              opposition:                    ‘POLOS’ for goods in the old
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.                                                                      Spanish class 7 (a.o. ice creams,
                                                                                cocoas, chocolate products, cara-
                                                                                mels, general confectionery prod-
                                                                                ucts).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case C-291/97 P: H. v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Officials - Invalidity procedure - Assessment of facts)

text:
C 258/8                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
     under such a certificate may thus not benefit from the               entered into force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom
     preferential rate provided for in that Regulation.                   of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                          have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 5 of
                                                                          Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
                                                                          22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom
                                                                          to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                          Member States and between Member States and third
                                                                          countries;
                                                                     2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                        of 11 June 1998
in Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-177/97: Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium and
               Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4055/
86 Ð Freedom to provide maritime transport services Ð                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Maritime Agreement concluded with a third country Ð                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                  Cargo-sharing arrangement)
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
                         (98/C 258/13)
                                                                     in Case C-291/97 P: H. v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                (Language of the case: French)                       (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Invalidity procedure Ð Assessment
                                                                                of facts)
                                                                                (98/C 258/14)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-177/97: Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: Frank Benyon) v                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) and Grand                             published in the European Court Reports)
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) for a
declaration that, by introducing and maintaining in force
cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between the             In Case C-291/97 P: H, a former official of the
Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia on                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
maritime transport, which was approved by the Kingdom                Brussels, represented by Vincent Lurquin, of the Brussels
of Belgium both in its own name and on behalf of the                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which entered into                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, Ð
force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium                   appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(C-176/97) and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-177/                 of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 3 June
97) have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 5 of       1997 in Case T-196/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December                   II-403, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services           party to the proceedings being Commission of the
to maritime transport between Member States and                      European Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira Ð
between Member States and third countries (OJ L 378 of               the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
31.12.1986, p. 1), the Court composed of: C. Gulmann                 President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
(President of Chamber), M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de               Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,                  Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,                 has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it:
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it:                               1. Dismisses the appeal;
1. Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force            2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
     cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between
     the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia                (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
     on maritime transport which was approved by the
     Kingdom of Belgium both in its own name and on
     behalf of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris (First Chamber A) by judgment of that court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eurotunnel SA, France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and the Channel Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle d'Armement Transmanche - Voluntary interveners: International Duty Free Confederation, Airport Operators Association Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre Irlande and Passenger Shipping Association Limited (Case C-408/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 46/ 11
4 . According to the decision, GSM radiotelephony services                 Commerce ( Commercial Court), Paris, ( First Chamber A ) of
       ' should . . . probably be regarded as also constituting a          27 November 1995 , received at the Court Registry on
       market separate from the market for analogue mobile                 29 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       telephony'. In the view of the Italian Government, that             Eurotunnel SA, France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and
       conclusion is mistaken and, in any event, insufficiently            The Channel Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle
       substantiated .                                                     d'Armement Transmanche — Voluntary interveners :
                                                                           International Duty Free Confederation , Airport Operators
5 . The contested decision is vitiated by errors of assessment             Association Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre
       and a defective statement of reasons .
                                                                           Irlande and Passenger Shipping Association Limited — on
                                                                           the following questions :
0 ) OJ No L 280 , 23 . 11 . 1995 , p . 49 .
                                                                           1 . Given the fact that Eurotunnel did not bring an action
                                                                                pursuant to Article 173 for the annulment of those parts
                                                                                of Council Directives 91 /680/EEC and 92/ 12/EEC
                                                                                relating to taxation (VAT and excise duty ) on
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Kingdom of                              cross-channel links ( J ) and that an application brought
Belgium against the Commission of the European                                    by Eurotunnel in the High Court of Justice was
                               Communities
                                                                                dismissed by decision of 17 February 1995 , will an
                           ( Case C-407/95 )                                      application for their annulment brought by Eurotunnel
                               ( 96/C 46/ 19 )                                    lie pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty ?
An action against the Commission of the European                           2 . If so, did the Chamber adopt those directives
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                        lawfully ?
European Communities on 22 December 1995 by the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director                          In the alternative, does Directive 94/4/EC ( 2 ) cover a
of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                             possible annulment of those two directives ?
Foreign Trade and Development Aid, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des                    3 . In the event of annulment, must the fact that SA SNAT
Girondins .                                                                       — Nouvelle d'Armement Transmanche — applied the
                                                                                fiscal laws adopted pursuant to those directives be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      imputed to it as a fault ? If so, as from what date was the
                                                                                fault committed ?
annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 2358/95 on the
exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff               ( J ) Council Directive 91 /680/EEC, Article 1 ( 22 ) ( Article 28k of
quota for imports of bananas during the fourth quarter of                         Directive 77/388/EEC ) ( OJ 1991 L 376 , pp . 1 and 17 ); Council
 1995 as a result of tropical storms Iris, Luis and Marilyn ( 1 ),                Directive 92/ 12/EEC, Article 28 ( OJ 1992 L 76 , pp . 1 and
and order the Commission to pay the costs .                                       12 ).
                                                                            ( 2 ) Council Directive 94/4/EC ( OJ 1994 L 60, p . 14 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 invoked against Regulation ( EC ) No 2791 /94 in Case
 C-9/95 ( 2 ).
 (') OJ No L 241 , 10 . 10 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 9 .                                   Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen by order of that court of
                                                                            21 December 1995 in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
                                                                                Nordrhein-Westfalen
                                                                                ( Case C-409/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/21 )
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
 Commerce de Paris ( First Chamber A) by judgment of that
 court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eurotunnel SA,                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and the Channel                            European Communities by an order of the First Chamber of
 Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle d'Armement                         the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen ( Gelsenkirchen
                                                                             Administrative Court) of 21 December 1995 , which was
 Transmanche — Voluntary interveners: International Duty
 Free Confederation, Airport Operators Association                           received at the Court Registry on 29 December 1995 , for a
 Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre Irlande and                       preliminary ruling in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
              Passenger Shipping Association Limited                         Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:
                             ( Case C-408/95 )                               Does Article 2(1 ) and ( 4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC
                                 ( 96/C 46/20 )                              of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle
                                                                             of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     employment, vocational training and promotion, and
  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                        working conditions ( ] ) preclude a rule of national law under


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 December 1999 in Case T-92/98: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Transparency — Access to documents — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Rejection of a request for access to Commission documents — Scope, first, of the exception based on protection of the public interest (court proceedings) and, second, of the authorship rule — Statement of reasons)

text:
22.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 20/19
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 November 1999
                      of 7 December 1999
                                                                          in Joined Cases T-103/98, T-104/98, T-107/98, T-113/98
                                                                          and T-118/98: Svend Bech Kristensen and Others v
in Case T-92/98: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v                                          Council of the European Union (1)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Action for annulment — Transfer of pension
                                                                          rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service —
(Action for annulment — Transparency — Access to docu-                                   Request for refund of the difference)
ments — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Rejection
of a request for access to Commission documents — Scope,
first, of the exception based on protection of the public                                            (2000/C 20/38)
interest (court proceedings) and, second, of the authorship
                 rule — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 20/37)                                   In Joined Cases T-103/98, T-104/98, T-107/98, T-113/98 and
                                                                          T-118/98: Svend Bech Kristensen, an official of the Council of
                                                                          the European Union, residing at Waterloo, Belgium, Bjarne
                                                                          Hoff-Nielsen, an official of the Council of the European Union,
                                                                          residing in Brussels, Peter Clausen, an official of the Council of
                  (Language of the case: German)                          the European Union, residing at La Hulpe, Belgium, and Ivar
                                                                          Langer Andersen, an official of the Council of the European
                                                                          Union, residing at Rungsted Kyst, Denmark, represented
In Case T-92/98: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, established               by Jean-Noël Louis, Véronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Georg M. Berrisch,                    Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels and Hamburg v Commission of the                    service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
European Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker) — application                 230 Rue de Cessange v Council of the European Union
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 April               (Agents: Martin Bauer and Denis Waelbroeck) — application
1998 refusing the applicant access to certain documents —                 for annulment of the Council decisions of 6 October 1997
the Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                 refusing the request for refund of that part of the applicants’
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung,               pension rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has               which was not taken into consideration in the calculation of
given a judgment on 7 December 1999, in which it:                         their years of pensionable service — the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                          J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
1. Annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 April 1998 in so           judgment on 10 November 1999, the operative part of which
     far as it refuses access to documents emanating from the             is as follows:
     Commission;
                                                                          1. The decisions of the Council of 6 October 1997 refusing to
                                                                               refund that part of the applicants’ pension rights transferred to
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 the Community pension scheme which was not taken into
                                                                               consideration in the calculation of their years of pensionable
                                                                               service are annulled.
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          2. The Council is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998 and OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.


title: Case T-301/05: Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/19

         Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-301/05)
   (2005/C 271/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Philippe Guigard (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               hold that the European Community is non-contractually liable in respect of the unlawful conduct of the Commission following the Commission's failure, in irregular circumstances, to renew the contract of employment between it and the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages and interest in compensation for both the applicant's professional loss (of an initial indicative amount of EUR 350 000) and his non-material loss (in an amount left to the fair and just assessment of the Court);

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action seeks compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission's failure, in circumstances which the applicant considers irregular, to renew the contract of employment which he had concluded with the defendant in the context of technical cooperation between the European Community and the Government of Niger.
   It should be noted in that regard that the applicant is an expert on the EuropAid list who, since 1992, has carried out a number of tasks as a contractual employee of the Commission. On 7 March 2002, he signed a contract of employment with the Commission for twelve months as a technical assistant with the Ministry for Equipment and Transport in Niamey. The task proceeded satisfactorily. The renewal of that contract was the subject of an official enquiry by the Ministry in its capacity as national authorising officer of the European Development Fund (EDF).
   In support of his claims, the applicant submits, firstly, that there has been an infringement of the IV Lomé Convention, in that the Commission did not comply with the division of powers between the national authorising officer and the Head of the Delegation, the latter not being able to oppose the renewal of the contract, since Article 313.2(k) of the Convention gives sole jurisdiction to the national authorising officer of the EDF in matters of recruitment of experts in technical assistance, the only obligation being to inform the Head of the Delegation thereof. Furthermore, and in any event, the Commission did not comply with the obligatory time-limit of 30 days laid down in Article 314 of the Convention within which it was to reply to the national authorising officer's request concerning the renewal of the contract.
   Finally, the applicant claims that there was an infringement of the principles of sound administration, of the duty of care and of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-314/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée Grévin against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/49
The applicant claims that there was a procedural defect in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
adoption of the directive. The version of the directive adopted
by the Council differs on several points from the version                 —     Annul the decisions of 11 December 2002 and 11 June
adopted by the European Parliament. That constitutes a breach                   2003 approving the applicant’s staff report for 1999-
of Article 251 EC. Furthermore, it submits that Article 95 EC                   2001;
does not constitute a sufficient legal basis. Despite its apparent
limitation to cross-border sponsorship, Article 5(1) entails a
general prohibition on sponsoring for tobacco products.                   —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
However, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice in                   pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Case C-376/98 (1) Article 95 EC does not justify a general ban                  Court of First Instance, together with the expenses
on sponsoring.                                                                  necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings
                                                                                and, in particular, the expenses relating to the address
                                                                                for service, travel and subsistence expenses and the
                                                                                remuneration of lawyers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of
The applicant argues further that the selection of Article 95 EC                those rules.
as the legal basis allowed the prohibition on harmonisation in
Article 152(4) to be circumvented. The applicant also claims
that the vague wording of the sponsorship ban breaches the
requirement of clarity which is the expression of the principle
of legal certainty fundamental to Community law.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Finally, the applicant points out that Article 5(1) of the                In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
directive is a disproportionate measure, in view both of                  Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of
the purported internal market objectives of the Community                 assessment. The applicant further alleges abuse of power.
legislature and of the health protection aims actually pursued
and thus breaches a founding principle of the European Union.
Moreover, the ban infringes the fundamental property rights
of the applicant.
(1) Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR
    I-8419.
                                                                          Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée
                                                                          Grévin against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-314/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/83)
Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman against the Commission of the European Com-                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                            munities
                        (Case T-313/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 275/82)                                   European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Société
                                                                          Musée Grévin, having its registered office in Paris, represented
                                                                          by Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, avocats.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2003 requiring
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      Société Musée Grévin to reimburse the amounts allegedly
European Communities on 11 September 2003 by Annelies                           overpaid to it;
Keyman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, avocat.                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/50                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
The applicant received a grant from the Commission in 1996                         Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
within the framework of a project to create a joint venture                        Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2003 (Case R 85/2002-
with a Polish undertaking. The request for a grant was based                       3);
on application of a regional development plan entitled ‘Joint
Venture PHARE TACIS Program’. Following an investigation                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
carried out in 2002 at the applicant’s premises and an                             Office.
exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the
Commission, the latter, by a missive of 8 July 2003, instructed
the bank acting as financial intermediary for the development
plan to effect full recovery of the funds paid to the applicant.             Pleas in law and main arguments
It is this notification which constitutes the decision under
challenge by the applicant.                                                  Trade mark concerned:        ‘LIVE RICHLY’ (word) — Appli-
                                                                                cation No. 2112647.
In support of its action, the applicant first invokes an alleged
breach of the provisions of Regulation No 1 (1) inasmuch as                  Products or services:        ‘Financial and monetary services
the contested decision was drafted in English and not in                                                  and real estate affairs; in particu-
French, even though it was addressed to the applicant, which                                              lar: banking; credit card; commer-
is a French company. The applicant also pleads an alleged                                                 cial and consumer lending and
failure to comply with the four-year limitation period laid                                               financing; real estate and mort-
down in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The                                               gage brokerage; trust, estate and
applicant further submits that the contested decision, which                                              fiduciary management, planning
was not signed by the competent Commissioner but by a Head                                                and consulting; investment and
of Unit and an administrator, infringes the principle of                                                  investment advisory and con-
collegiate responsibility and originates from an authority                                                sulting; securities brokerage and
lacking competence.                                                                                trading services facilitating secure
                                                                                financial transactions, insurance
                                                                                services; in particular, underwrit-
The applicant contends further that the contested decision is                                             ing and sales of property, casualty
vitiated by a substantive inaccuracy as to the facts, lacks any                                           and life insurance policies and
legal basis, fails to satisfy the obligation to state reasons, and                                        annuity contracts’ (Class 36)
infringes the principles of proportionality and audi alteram
partem and the right to due process.                                         Challenged       Decision    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                             before the Board of          examiner
                                                                             Appeal:
(1) Regulation No 1 of the Council determining the languages to be
    used by the European Economic Community (OJ English Special              Pleas in law:                Violation of Articles 7(1)(b) and
    Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).                                                                            73, first and second sentences, of
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
    1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
    interests (OJ L 312 of 23.12.1995, pp. 1 to 4).
                                                                             Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against                      and Others against European Parliament and Council of
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                           the European Union
                          (Case T-320/03)                                                            (Case T-321/03)
                          (2003/C 275/84)                                                            (2003/C 275/85)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 the European Union was brought before the Court of First
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp,                       Instance on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH and 244
New York (USA), represented by Dr V. von Bomhard,                            other companies, represented by D. Waalbroeck and N. Ram-
Dr A. Pohlmann and Dr. A. Renck, lawyers.                                    pal, avocats.


C 366/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-92/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-185/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/47)
By order of 24 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-92/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        from the register of Case C-185/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X, Y and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                          Z.
                                                                   (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-151/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/44)
By order of 28 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-151/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-186/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                 (1999/C 366/48)
                                                                   By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-186/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X.
       Removal from the register of Case C-31/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/45)                             (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-31/99: Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-210/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/49)
       Removal from the register of Case C-32/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/46)                             By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-210/99: Commission of the
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-32/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 1997 in Case T-29/96: Bernd Schoch v. European Parliament (Officials - Compensation for leave not taken - Sick leave - Notice)

text:
No C 252/30          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16 . 8 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                       of 10 July 1997
                                                                   (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
in Case T-81/96: Christos Apostolidis and Others v.
       Commission of the European Communities (')
(Officials — Remuneration — Weighting — Measures
taken to comply with a judgment ordering annulment —
Article 176 of the EC Treaty — Fair compensation —                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 44 (1) (c)
                 of the Rules of Procedure)                                                  of 11 July 1997
                                                                   in Case T-267/94: Oleifici Italiani SpA v. Commission of
                        ( 97/C 252/65 )
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                                                                   (Modification of the olive oil regime — No transitional
                                                                                period — Action for damages)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/66 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-81 /96 : Christos Apostolidis, Philippe Arbore,
Patrick Barraux, Wilhelm Bartscher, Erhard Baumgärtner,
Ulrich Benedict, Rutger Beukers, Teresa Blanco Oria,               In Case T-267/94: Oleifici Italiani SpA, established in
Bruno Brandalise, Klaas Buijs, Franco Capone, Bernard              Ostuni ( Italy), represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari and
Chavane de Dalmassy, Jean-Claude Closset, Bert Cremer,             Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, and by Antonio
Manfred de Rossi, Geoffroy de Caritat, Peter Erndwein,             Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
Jean-Louis Finet, Serge Fourcaudot, Claude Fuchs, Bruno            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Giovannone, Karl-Heinz Gruhlke, Günther Guhl,                      Albert l er, against Commission of the European
Hermann Heidebleck, Wilhelm Heinz, Jean-Pol Hiernaut,              Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal
Tania Hiernaut, Erwin Hohnhäuser, Wolfgang Huber,                  Ferro ) — application for compensation for the loss
Klaus Kammerichs, Franz Kopp, Gerold Kramer, Patrick               allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the absence of
Lajarge, Ulrich Lang, Fabrice Lebrun, Sandra Lessmann,             any transitional measure in Commission Regulation ( EEC )
Achim Linder, Mauro Martellenghi, Margit Merten, Erich             No 1429/92 of 26 May 1992 amending Regulation ( EEC )
Mildenberger, Irmgard Neumann-Schölles, Adrian Nicholl,            No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive
Norbert Nolte, Giorgio Pagliosa, Dirk Pel, Jean-Claude             residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis ( OJ
Perrier, Gert Rasmussen, Cornelis Rijkeboer, Jürgen                No L 150, 2 . 6 . 1992 , p. 17 ) — the Court of First
Rodegher, Kuno Römer, Eva-Maria Schäfer, Walter                    Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García
Schmitt, Herbert Schneider, Hans Schneider, Raoul                  Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; A.
Selfslag, Joseph Somers, Vittorino Tebaldi, Hartmut                Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Thiele, Hans van de Vegt, Jacques van de Laar, Günther             judgment on 11 July 1997, in which it:
Waigel, Clive Walker, Ludwig Westenfelder, Hans
Winkelmann and Walter Ziehl, officials and temporary               1 . dismisses the application;
agents of the Commission of the European Communities,
employed in the European Institute for Transuranic                 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Elements, Karlsruhe ( Germany), represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange,
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall ), supported by
Council of the European Union (Agent: Diego Canga
Fano ) — application, first, for annulment of the decision
taken against them by the Commission, rejecting the                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
applicants ' request for the drawing-up of their pay slips                                   (Fifth Chamber)
for January 1992 in compliance with the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of 27 October 1994 in Case T-64/                                     of 11 July 1997
92 Chavanne de Dalmassy and Others v. Commission                   in Case T-29/96: Bernd Schoch v. European Parliament ( ] )
[ 1994] ECR-SC 11-723 and, second, for compensation for
the non-material damage suffered — the Court of First              (Officials — Compensation for leave not taken — Sick
Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                       leave — Notice)
President, C. P. Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; A. Mair,                                       ( 97/C 252/67 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
10 July 1997, in which it:                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-29/96 : Bend Schoch, a former member of the
1 . dismisses the application;                                     temporary staff of the Liberal Democratic and Reformist
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/31
Group of the European Parliament, residing at                        Lorenz) — application for annulment of the decision of
Gottmadingen ( Germany ), represented by Lucas Vogel and             the Parliament of 28 November 1995 rejecting a request
Gisele Stépanian, both of the Brussels Bar, and, at the              by the applicant for the assignment to her of non-active
hearing, by Beatrice Gribomont, of the Brussels Bar, with            status within the meaning of Article 41 of the Staff
an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of              Regulations of officials of the European Communities —
Christian Kremer, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the                the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:
European Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Arnaldo              R. García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Pinto ) — application for the annulment of the decision of           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July
the European Parliament refusing to pay the applicant Bfrs           1997, in which it:
124 120 by way of compensation for 19,5 days of leave
allegedly not taken at the time of his departure, following
the termination of his contract as a member of the                   1 . dismisses the application;
temporary staff — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President                2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
11 July 1997, in which it:
1 . annuls the Parliament's decision of 26 February 1996
     in so far as it considers that the applicant's absence
     during the period between 14 and 23 September 1994
     was unauthorized;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 July 1997
2 . orders the Parliament to pay Mr Schoch compensation
     corresponding to nine days of leave not taken, the                      in Case T- 123/95 : B v. European Parliament (^
     amount to be determined in accordance with the
                                                                     (Temporary staff — Engagement on the basis of
     second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff           Article 2 (b) of the Conditions of Employment of other
     Regulations. Interest on arrears is to be paid in respect       servants of the European Communities — Termination of
     of that sum at the rate of 8% per annum as from                 employment pursuant to Article 47 (2) (a) of the
     8 March 1 996 until the date of actual payment;                 Conditions of Employment of other servants — Breach of
                                                                     essential procedural requirements — Compliance with a
3 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                      properly introduced internal procedure — Statement of
                                                                          reasons for the decision terminating the employment)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/69 )
4 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T-123/95 : B, a former member of the temporary
                                                                     staff of the European Parliament, residing at Messina
                                                                     ( Italy), represented by Jean Noel Louis, of the Brussels
                                                                     Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the Reggio di Calabria Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
                          of 11 July 1997                            European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Antonio
                                                                     Caiola ) — application for annulment of the decision
in Case T-108/96:           Mireille Cesarotto v.    European        terminating the applicant's contract of employment and
                           Parliament (M
                                                                     for compensation for the various types of damage
(Officials — Article 41 of the Staff Regulations — Action            allegedly suffered by him as a result of such termination
for annulment of a decision rejecting a request for                  — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed
               assignment of non-active status)                      of: A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
                                                                     Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                            97/C 252/68 )                            has given a judgment on 14 July 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)                       1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-108/96 : Mireille Cesaratto, an official of the            2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented
by Gaston Vogel and Ferdinand Burg, of the Luxembourg                (') OJ No C 229, 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Gaston Vogel, 42 Boulevard Joseph II, v.
European Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Norbert


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 July 1996 in Case C-173/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Employment in the public service)

text:
9 . 11 . 96              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 336/5
2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                               1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
      costs .                                                                     Community;
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .                                            2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition, 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                            (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                            ( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 2 July 1996
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       in Case C-l 73/94: Commission of the European
             Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (*)                                                     of 2 July 1996
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                             in Case C-290/94 : Commission of the European
Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the                                       Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( ] )
                            public service)                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                            ( 96/C 336/09 )                                 Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the
                                                                                public service)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/10 )
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-l 73/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Patrick Duray ) — Application for a                        In Case C-290/94 : Commission of the European
declaration that, by maintaining a nationality requirement                  Communities ( Agent: Maria Patakia ) v. Hellenic Republic
in relation to workers who are nationals of other Member                    ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoní-Rantou and Stamatina Vodina )
States as regards access to employment as officials or public              — Application for a declaration that, by imposing a Greek
employees of the public bodies responsible for the                          nationality condition in relation to workers who are
distribution of water, gas and electricity ( for example,                   nationals of other Member States as regards access to
Compagnie Intercommunale Bruxelloise des Eaux, Vlaamse                      employment in public, semi-public or municipal
Maatschappij voor Watervoorziening, Unerg, Sibelgaz,                        undertakings and companies distributing water, gas and
etc .), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                     electricity, in the operational sectors of the public health
obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                     service, to teacher posts in nursery, primary and secondary
Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of                schools and higher education establishments and
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                          universities subject to the Ministry of National Education,
within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court composed of: G. C.                   to posts in air and sea transport services , companies or
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                     organizations, in the Greek National Railways ( OSE ), and
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of                     in the public or municipal bodies, companies and
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                        undertakings providing public city and intercity transport
Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.                   services, to posts for scientific and non-scientific staff in
Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                      public establishments conducting research for non-military
and M. Wathelet, Judges ; Advocate-General : P. Leger,                      purposes, to posts in public or semi-public bodies or
Registrar:         D.        Loutermann-Hubeau,              Principal      undertakings providing postal services ( ELTA ),
Administrator, has given a judgment on 2 July 1996 , in                    telecmmunications services ( OTE ) and radio and television
which it :                                                                  broadcasting services ( ET), and as regards access to
                                                                           musicians' posts at the Athens Opera and in municipal and
                                                                            local orchestras, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of                    obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and
      Belgian nationality to access to posts which, in the                 Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of
      public legal entities responsible for the distribution of             15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
      water, gas and electricity, involve direct or indirect               within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court composed of: G. C.
      participation in the exercise of powers conferred by                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
      public law and duties designed to safeguard the general               Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
      interests of the State or of other public authorities, the            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
      pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of             J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm,
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October                     L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General :


title: Case T-170/03: Action brought on 14 May 2003 by British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.7.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 171/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-           Sissi Rossi S.r.l.                           —     annul the refusal of the Defendant comprising the failure
munity trade mark:                                                              to give access to certain documentation requested in the
                                                                                Applicant’s confirmatory application of 17 January 2003.
Community trade mark         The trade mark ‘SISSI ROSSI’ -
sought:                      Application No 837.906 for
                             goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and              —     order the Defendant to pay all the Applicant’s costs
                             26                                                 pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                                Court of First Instance.
Proprietor of mark or        The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in        Italian trade mark No 553.016
opposition:                  and international trade mark
                             No 577.643 ‘MISS ROSSI’, for                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                             goods in Class 25 (ladies’ shoes)
Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition upheld and appli-
sition Division:             cation for registration refused              The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
                                                                          defendant to grant it access to certain documents relating to
Decision of the Board of     Appeal upheld and opposition                 the classification of expanded tobacco for Customs and Excise
Appeal:                      decision dismissed                           duty purposes. Regarding this topic, it points out that it has a
                                                                          vital interest in knowing why a given product — expanded
                                                                          tobacco — is treated as smoking tobacco within the meaning
Pleas in law:                Likelihood of confusion by associ-           of Article 5(1) of Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November
                             ation and similarity between the             1995, on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the
                             trade mark applied for and the
                                                                          consumption of manufactured tobacco (1), and thus as an
                             trade mark cited in opposition               excisable product. The applicant considers the product an
                             (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                          intermediary product, unsmokable without further processing,
                             No 40/94)                                    and therefore not excisable. It is stressed that there has been
                                                                          no published decision determining the issue and giving the
                                                                          reasons for the classification chosen.
                                                                          As regards two of the sets of requested documents (a complete
                                                                          set of documents of the Customs Cooperation Council on the
                                                                          Classification of expanded tobacco for customs classification
Action brought on 14 May 2003 by British American                         purposes and all the attendance lists of all meetings of the
Tobacco (Investments) Limited against the Commission                      Committee on Excise Duties, or any other relevant Committee,
                of the European Communities                               at which the definition of ‘smoking tobacco’ was debated), the
                                                                          applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 8(1)
                                                                          and (2) of Regulation(EC) 1049/2001 (2), by not responding
                        (Case T-170/03)                                   within the regulatory time-limits thereof.
                        (2003/C 171/66)
                                                                          In relation to the full minutes of all meetings of Excise duties,
                  (Language of the case: English)                         or any other relevant committee, at which the definition of
                                                                          ‘smoking tobacco’ was debated, including the full minutes of
                                                                          discussions on other agenda points, the applicant claims that
                                                                          the contested refusal:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     Misapplied the principle of proportionality. In particular,
European Communities on 14 May 2003 by British American                         the Commission made no attemp to confer informally
Tobacco (Investments) Limited, London, United Kingdom,                          with the applicant with a view to finding a fair solution,
represented by Mr S. Crosby, lawyer.                                            pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
—      Has not given due weight to the applicant’s interest in              Pleas in law and main arguments
       receiving the requested documentation
                                                                            Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
                                                                            munity trade mark:
Moreover, the applicant doesn’t accept the Commission’s
contention that the Member States would have to be consulted
in relation to the submissions made by them in the minutes. It              Community trade mark         Figurative mark NLCollection —
is the applicant’s position that, in accordance with Article 4(4)           sought:                      Application No 1082809 for
of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, a consultation with a Member                                               goods in Class 25 (articles of
State shall take place only when it is not clear whether a                                               clothing, footwear and headgear).
document shall or shall not be disclosed. Furthermore, the
final decision as to whether or not a document shall be released
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        NAULOVER SA
remains with the Commission, and this must be reasoned and                  sign cited in the oppo-
clearly justified as falling within one of the exemptions                   sition proceedings:
provided for in the access regulation.
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        Figurative mark NL (Community
                                                                            opposition:                  trade mark No 13417 and Span-
( 1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                                ish trade mark No 1329084).
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
     the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
     Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of              Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.
     31.5.2001, p. 43).                                                     sition Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                ance of the opposition with
                                                                                respect to Community trade mark
                                                                                No 13417.
                                                                            Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by New Look Limited                                                        of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                lihood of confusion).
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-171/03)
                         (2003/C 171/67)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes against
                                                                                the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-173/03)
An action against the 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                                          (2003/C 171/68)
19 May 2003 by New Look Limited, established in Weymouth,
Dorset (United Kingdom), represented by R. Ballester and
G. Marín, lawyers.                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of OHIM (First Board of Appeal) of                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       15 April 2003 in Case No R 019/2003-1;                               Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 19 May 2003 by Anne Geddes,
                                                                            Auckland, New Zealand, represented by Mr G. Farrington,
—      order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.                      Solicitor.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2004 in Case C-433/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blĳdenstein (Brussels Convention — Special rules of jurisdiction — Article 5(2) — Maintenance — Action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance creditor)

text:
C 71/2                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             20.3.2004
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 22 January 2004                                                           of 15 January 2004
              in Case C-353/01 P: Olli Mattila (1)
                                                                           in Case C-433/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Bundesgerichtshof ): Freistaat Bayern v Jan
(Appeal — Access to documents — Decisions 93/731/EC                                                    Blijdenstein (1)
and 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Exception relating to the
protection of the public interest in the field of international
                   relations — Partial access)                             (Brussels Convention — Special rules of jurisdiction —
                                                                           Article 5(2) — Maintenance — Action for recovery brought
                                                                           by a public body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance
                          (2004/C 71/02)                                                                   creditor)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                     (2004/C 71/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-353/01 P, Olli Mattila (Agent: Z. Sundström), with
an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                        in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Case T-204/
99 Mattila v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II-2265,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to
the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:
J. Aussant and M. Bauer), with an address for service in                   In Case C-433/01: Reference to the Court, pursuant to the
Luxembourg, and Commission of the European Communities                     Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
(Agents: C. Docksey and U. Wölker) with an address for service             Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdic-
in Luxembourg, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                     tion and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                 matters, by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,                       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                     Freistaat Bayern and Jan Blijdenstein, on the interpretation of
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                    Article 5(2) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 Septem-
judgment on 22 January 2004, in which it:                                  ber 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the
                                                                           Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
                                                                           Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
1.   Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the         Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and
     European Communities of 12 July 2001 in Case T-204/99                 — amended text— p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October
     Mattila v Council and Commission in so far as it rejects Mr           1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982
     Mattila’s form of order seeking annulment of the decisions of         L 388, p. 1), and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
     the Commission of the European Communities and the Council            accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
     of the European Union of 5 and 12 July 1999 respectively              Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
     refusing the appellant access to certain documents;                   composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
                                                                           the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Judges;
2.   Annuls those decisions;                                               A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has ruled:
3.   Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
                                                                           Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
4.   Orders the Council and the Commission to pay the costs                and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
     relating to both sets of proceedings.                                 as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession
                                                                           of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                           Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                                1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention
                                                                           of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
                                                                           Portuguese Republic must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot
                                                                           be relied on by a public body which seeks, in an action for recovery,
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 71/3
reimbursement of sums paid under public law by way of an education           the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
grant to a maintenance creditor, to whose rights it is subrogated            J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
against the maintenance debtor.                                              F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                             Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February 2004, in which
                                                                             it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                             1.    (a)   Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
                                                                                1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments
                                                                                in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the
                                                                                Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                 of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
                                                                                Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                        of 5 February 2004                                               Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996
                                                                                on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic
in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                      of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be
from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO                                      interpreted as meaning that a case concerning the legality
               Landsorganisationen i Sverige (1)                                         of industrial action, in respect of which exclusive jurisdic-
                                                                                tion belongs, in accordance with the law of the Contracting
                                                                                State concerned, to a court other than the court which has
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in                                    jurisdiction to try the claims for compensation for the
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where                           damage caused by that industrial action, falls within the
the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade                                    definition of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’.
union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship
            registered in another Contracting State)
                          (2004/C 71/04)                                           (b) For the application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels
                                                                                Convention to a situation such as that in the dispute in
                                                                                the main proceedings, it is sufficient that that industrial
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                        action is a necessary precondition of sympathy action
                                                                                which may result in harm.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (c)   The application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention
                                                                                is not affected by the fact that the implementation of
                                                                                industrial action was suspended by the party giving notice
In Case C-18/02: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
                                                                                pending a ruling on its legality.
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Arbejdsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             2.    In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
proceedings pending before that court between Danmarks
                                                                                Article 5(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the damage
Rederiforening, acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S, and LO
                                                                                resulting from industrial action taken by a trade union in a
Landsorganisationen i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO
                                                                                Contracting State to which a ship registered in another
Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation, on the
                                                                                Contracting State sails can be regarded as having occurred in
interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Conven-
                                                                                the flag State, with the result that the shipowner can bring an
tion of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
                                                                                action for damages against that trade union in the flag State.
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1, and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of                (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and by the
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, acting on behalf of the President of


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-374/01 (1)

   (2004/C 94/79)
   By order of 28 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-374/01: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.