Case T-175/01: Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: ECSC Treaty, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), action for failure to act, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, iron and steel industry

10.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 317/27

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of

OHIM of 25 April 2001 (Case R641/2000-3);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity mark:

the applicant

Trade mark applied for:

‘Silk Cocoon’
in
Class 25 (clothing) — Application
No 551903

goods

for

Holder of the rights in
the mark or sign relied merly La Redoute SA)
on in the opposition
proceedings:

Redcats SA, Roubaix (France) (for-

Opposed mark or sign:

the French and international word
mark ‘Cocoon’
in
Class 25

for goods

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

dismissal of the opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

annulment of the Decision of the
Opposition Division

Pleas in law relied on:

— infringement of Article 43(2)
Regulation

of
Council
No 40/94 (1);

— lack of evidence of genuine

use of the opposed marks;

— infringement of Rule 22(2)
of Commission Regulation
No 2868/95 (2);

— infringement of Rule 22(1)
of Commission Regulation
No 2686/95.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de
Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-175/01)

(2001/C 317/54)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Sacilor Lormines,
a mining company established at Puteaux (France), represented
by Geneviève Marty, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of 9 July 2001 by which the
Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;

— annul the express decision of 10 July 2001 by which the
Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

The applicant company in this case, which is also the applicant
in Case T-107/01, (1) claims to have been subjected to excessive
financial pressure by the French authorities in consequence of
its commencement of the procedures for abandonment and
surrender of
the French
its mining licences. Because of
administration’s wish to block it, the said surrender has been
impossible to effect.

Faced with what it claims to be a refusal by the French
administrative courts to protect the rights to which it is entitled
under the ECSC Treaty, the applicant lodged a complaint with
the Commission against the French State. Since that complaint
was rejected, it brought before the Court of First Instance an
action for failure to act and annulment, which was registered
under No T-107/01, referred to above.

On this occasion the applicant has addressed a further letter of
formal notice to the Commission asking it to find that France
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(b) and 86
ECSC. The Commission’s failure to respond has given rise to
an implied decision of rejection which is open to challenge.
Further, on 19 July 2001, the applicant received a letter
informing it that the Commission considered that Article 4(b)
ECSC was not applicable to the case. Those are the decisions
which are challenged.

C 317/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

In this case the applicant is bringing an action for failure to act
and annulment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims, the applicant asserts:

— infringement of Articles 4(b), 86 and 88 of the ECSC
Treaty. It is alleged in this respect that the imposition on
ECSC undertakings of charges which,
in the case of
Charbonnages de France, will be directly or indirectly
financed, whereas the applicant, a private company, will
have to meet them in the absence of any commercial
production, constitutes discrimination contrary to the
ECSC Treaty;

— infringement of essential procedural requirements by

failure to state reasons;

— lack of competence, since it does not appear from the
letter of 10 July 2001 that the decision which it contains
was formally taken by the Commission and that its
signatory was authorised to sign it;

— breach of the principle of sound administration.

(1) Sacilor Lorminesv Commission (not yet published in the Official

Journal).

The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
on the list of successful candidates drawn up in the context of
the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
Technological Development programmes.

In support of her claims the applicant alleges:

— The infringement of the duty to state reasons and the

principle of openness;

— The infringement of the Selection Process Notice and the
rules governing the composition of a selection board;

— The infringement of the principles of sound adminis-
tration and equal treatment, in that the identity and the
professional and administrative situation of the members
of the Selection Committee were disclosed only to certain
candidates.

Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation
against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market

(Case T-182/01)

(2001/C 317/55)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-183/01)

(2001/C 317/56)

(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 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet,
in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
resident
lawyers, with an address for service in
Véronique Peere,
Luxembourg.

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation,
represented by Michael Edenborough, Hogarth Chambers,
London (UK).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Selection Committee COM/
R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark that was not
sufficient to allow her to be included on the reserve list;

— order the defendent to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal and the
Opposition Division in so far as they concern the
application for registration of the applicant’s mark for the
goods in Class 5; and as a consequence, order that the
Office should allow the applicant’s mark to proceed to
registration for the goods in Class 5;