Case T-18/01: Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), capacity to exercise rights, lawyer, vocational training

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/23

In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
practising at that Bar.

By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
applicant’s complaint.

In the present case, the applicant submits inter alia that the
Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
framework at Community level
and effects of
regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.

the legal

Grounds of claim:

Infringement of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe-
ment of the EC Treaty (Articles
28 and 29 EC) — No similarity
between the
conflicting trade
marks — Impermissible splitting-
up of the mark into its individual
component parts — Failure to
have regard to the case-law of the
Court of Justice concerning the
impression given by a
overall
mark — Right of a competitor in
the market to combine the name
of its main products with its com-
pany name — Change in the legal
position since registration of the
opposing mark.

Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-18/01)

(2001/C 108/43)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of
Merriman White, London (UK).

Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands
International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the
European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu-
lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
Bar of England and Wales

— Order the Commission to pay the costs

(Case T-19/01)

(2001/C 108/44)

(Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales
and the practice of law as a barrister.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
(UK).