Case T-315/01: Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Afghanistan, action for annulment (EU), export restriction, foreign capital, human rights, international sanctions

C 56/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

Thus,
it pleads infringement of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of
Regulation No 4064/89 and violation of the principle of sound
administration, inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the
Commission presents the proposals for undertakings in an
excessively summary way for the purposes of their comprehen-
sion by third parties, who were consequently unable to assess
their real scope.

In addition, according to the applicant,
the Commission
committed various errors of law and of assessment on that
point,
in breach of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of Regulation
No 4064/89, of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and of the
principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
30.12.1989, p. 1) (text republished in its entirety, with corrections,
in OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).

(2) Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on
the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition
proceedings (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document
number C(2001) 1461) (OJ L 162 of 19.6.2001, p. 21).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

TRUCCO S.p.A.

The Community trade
mark applied for:

the pictorial mark registered by
the Office as ‘Starix’ for goods in
Class
9 — Application
No 1043090

Proprietor of the trade-
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:

the applicant

Trade-mark
opposed:

right

the verbal mark ‘ASTERIX’ (Reg.
No 16147)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the opposition

rejection of the appeal

Grounds of claim:

— risk of confusion between

the two marks;

Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Les Editions
Albert René against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-311/01)

(2002/C 56/29)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
been drafted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
12 December 2001 by Les Editions Albert René, of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, lawyer. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Trucco S.p.A., of
Milan (Italy).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 5 October 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
No R 1030/2000-1 and order the cancellation of trade
mark No 1043090 ‘OStarix’;

— order the Office to pay the costs.

— infringement of Article 74(1)
(EC)

Regulation

of
No 40/94 (1).

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

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

Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah
Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-315/01)

(2002/C 56/30)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi, represented
by Mr David Pannick QC, Mr Pushpinder Saini, Barrister, Mr
Guy Martin and Mr Adam Tudor (Peter Carter-Ruck &
Partners), of London (United Kingdom).

2.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 56/17

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant him a Declaration that Commission Regulation
(EC) No. 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 and Council
Regulation (EC) No. 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 are,
insofar as they relate to the applicant, void, and an Order
for annulment in this regard;

— order that the Council and/or the Commission pay the

applicant’s costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Saudi Arabia
with substantial financial interests within the European Union,
challenges Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October
2001, amending, for the third time, Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and
services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and
extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources
in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regu-
lation (EC) No 337/2000 (1), in as much as it inserted the
applicant’s name into Annex I to Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001. By Article 2/1 of the latter, all funds belonging
to persons designated by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
the United Nations are to be frozen.

In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that the
measures in question:

— Amount to an interference with property rights, protected
as a fundamental right within the Community legal order.

Action brought on 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesell-
schaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssyte-
me mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-317/01)

(2002/C 56/31)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
been drafted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 December 2001 by M+M Gesellschaft
für Unter-
nehmensberatung und Informationssyteme mbH, of Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer. A further
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
Mediametrie S.A., of Levallois Perret (France).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 2 October 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
No R 698/2000-1;

— order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.

— Entitle the Council and the Commission, in violation of
the right to a fair hearing, to freeze his assets and to
maintain his freeze without granting him any opportunity
to make submissions to these authorities seeking to
persuade them to release his assets.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

the applicant

— Provide, in violation of the Community Law principle of
effective judicial control, no remedy to the Applicant by
which he may seek to challenge his inclusion in the list
by obtaining an independent judicial assessment of the
evidential basis for the interference with his rights.

The Community trade
mark applied for:

the verbal mark ‘M+M EURODA-
TA’
for goods and services in
Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 (inter
alia software, market research and
seminars)

According to the Applicant, an independent assessment by the
Communty institutions or by any judicial body of the evidential
basis for the freezing of its assets would show there is no basis
for the allegations against it.

(1) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25.

Proprietor of the trade- Mediametrie S.A.
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:

Trade-mark
opposed:

right

the Irish, French and international
(effective in respect of Benelux,
Spain, Italy and Portugal) verbal
mark ‘EURODATA TV’

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

rejection of the opposition