Judgment of the Court of First Instance 26 February 2002 in Case T-323/99: Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini SpA (INMA) and Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest) v Commission of the European Communities (State aids — Shipbuilding — Meaning of aid — Lack of reasoning)
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), building subsidy, shipbuilding

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/39

1. Dismisses the application;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of

the defendant and the intervener.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

26 February 2002

21 March 2002

in Case T-231/99: Colin Joynson v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

in Case T-323/99: Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini
SpA (INMA) and Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest) v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition — Beer supply agreements — Individual
exemption — Article 81(3) EC)

(State aids — Shipbuilding — Meaning of aid — Lack of
reasoning)

(2002/C 144/82)

(2002/C 144/83)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-231/99, Colin Joynson, residing in Manchester
(United Kingdom),
represented by B. Bedford, Barrister,
instructed by Messrs Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, v Commission
of
the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and
N. Khan), supported by Bass plc, established in London (United
J. Block and
Kingdom), represented by M. Farquharson,
N. Green, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg:
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/
473/EC of 16 June 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Article 81 [EC] (Case IV/36.081/F3 — Bass) (OJ 1999 L 186,
p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
of:
Judges;
J. Palacio Gonza´lez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it:

J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M.

Jaeger,

1. Dismisses the application;

In Case T-323/99, Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini SpA
(INMA), in liquidation, established in La Spezia (Italy), rep-
resented by S. Capparucci, Italia Investimenti SpA (Itainvest),
established in Rome (Italy), represented in these proceedings
by G. M. Roberti and F. Sciaudone, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and, initially, A. Abate
and E. Cappelli, and, subsequently, Abate and G. Conte):
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/
262/EC of 20 July 1999 on State aid granted by Italy to the
INMA shipyard (OJ 2000 L 83, p. 21), Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of:
P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı´a-Valdecasas, J. D. Cooke, M. Vilaras
and N. J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio Gonza´lez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February 2002,
in which it:

2. Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those of the

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2000/262/EC of 20 July 1999

Commission;

on State aid granted by Italy to the INMA shipyard;

C 144/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those

3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

incurred by the applicants.

(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

26 February 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

in Case T-17/00: Willi Rothley e.a. v European Parlia-
ment (1)

(Measure of the Parliament — Action for annulment —
Admissibility — Immunity of Members of the Parliament
— European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Powers of
investigation)

(2002/C 144/84)

(Language of the case: German)

27 February 2002

in Case T-34/00: Eurocool Logistik GmbH v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — EUROCOOL — Observance of
the rights of defence — Absolute ground for refusal —
Distinctive character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94)

(Agents:

(Agents:

the European Communities

In Case T-17/00, Willi Rothley, residing at Rockenhausen
(Germany), and the 70 other applicants whose names appear
in the Annex hereto, represented by H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch,
lawyers, v European Parliament
J. Schoo and
H. Krück), supported by Council of the European Union
(Agents: J. Aussant, M. Bauer and I. Dı´ez Parra), Commission
J.-L. Dewost,
of
H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker), Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agents: H. G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) and French Republic
(Agents: G. de Bergues, S. Pailler, C. Vasak and L. Bernheim):
Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of
18 November 1999 on the amendments to the Rules of
Procedure following the Interinstitutional Agreement of
25 May 1999 between the Parliament, the Council and the
Commission on the internal investigations conducted by the
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı´a-
Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 February
2002, in which it:

(2002/C 144/85)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-34/00, Eurocool Logistik GmbH, established in Linz
(Austria), represented by G. Secklehner, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
O. Montalto, E. Joly and G. Schneider): Action brought against
the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
(Trade Marks and
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) of 9 December 1999 (Case R 233/1999-1), concern-
ing registration of the term EUROCOOL as a Community trade
mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those incurred
by the defendant in the main proceedings and in the application
for interim relief;

1. Annuls paragraph 1 of the operative part of the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December
1999 (Case R 233/1999-1);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;