Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2002 in Case T-311/00: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to Commission documents — Whether documents exist — No need to proceed to judgment — Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously)
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), document, provision of documents, tobacco industry

C 202/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 June 2002

in Case T-232/00: Chef Revival USA Inc. v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)(OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition
proceedings — Rule 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

(2002/C 202/31)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-232/00, Chef Revival USA Inc., established in Lodi,
New Jersey (United States), represented by N. Jenkins, Solicitor,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs)(OHIM) (Agent: A. von Mühlendahl), defendant, the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) being Joachı´n Massagué Marı´n, of Sabadell
(Spain): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2000 (Case
R 181/1999-3), as corrected by corrigendum of 6 July 2000,
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonza´lez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 13 June 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 26 June 2000 (Case R 181/1999-3), as rectified
by corrigendum of 6 July 2000;

2. Orders the Office to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and R. Wain-
wright): Application for annulment of
the Commission’s
decision of 29 June 2000 (C (2000) 1684 final) to the effect
that repayment to the applicant of import duties is not justified,
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 4 July 2002, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the defendant’s costs in addition to

its own.

(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 25 June 2002

in Case T-311/00: British American Tobacco (Invest-
ments) Ltd v Commission of the European Communi-
ties (1)

(Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
Commission documents — Whether documents exist — No
need to proceed to judgment — Costs caused unreasonably
or vexatiously)

(2002/C 202/33)

(Language of the case: English)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 4 July 2002

in Case T-239/00: SCI UK Ltd v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Repayment of import duties — Article 13 of Regulation
(EEC) No 1430/79 — Meaning of ‘special situation’)

(2002/C 202/32)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-239/00, SCI UK Ltd, established in Irvine (United
Kingdom), represented by L. Allen, Barrister, v Commission of

In Case T-311/00, British American Tobacco (Investments)
Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented
by S. Crosby, Solicitor, v Commission of
the European
Communities (Agents: U. Wölker, X. Lewis and M. Shotter):
Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
7 September 2000 refusing to grant access to certain docu-
ments concerning preparatory work relating to the proposal
for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
(COM(1999) 594 final), presented by the Commission on
7 January 2000, on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products
(OJ 2000 C 150 E, p. 43), the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 2002, in which
it:

24.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 202/23

1. Dismisses the action in so far as it relates to the category of
documents constituted by the minutes of the meetings of the
cancer experts committee assessing the international scientific
research;

2.

Finds that there is no need to proceed to judgment on the
remainder of the case;

3. Orders the Commission in addition to bearing its own costs, to
pay those of the applicant, save for costs relating to the request
for the oral procedure to be re-opened. The Commission is also
ordered to pay the costs connected with the summoning of
witnesses.

(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 2 July 2002

in Case T-323/00: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH
v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — ‘SAT. 2’ — Absolute grounds
for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Equal treatment)

(2002/C 202/34)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-323/00, SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, estab-
lished in Mainz (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,
lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl
and C. Røhl Søberg): Action brought against the decision of
the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August
2000 (Case R 312/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 July 2002, in which
it:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 2 August 2000 (Case R 312/1999-2) in so far
as the Board failed to rule on the appeal before it as regards the
services within Class 35;

2. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 2 August 2000 (Case R 312/1999-2) in so far
as the Board dismissed the appeal before it as regards the
following categories of services:

— ‘Services relating to a database’ within Class 38;

rental of

— ‘Production and reproduction of data, speech, text, sound
and image recordings on video and/or audio cassettes,
tapes and discs (including CD-ROMs and CD-i’s) and of
video games (computer games); demonstration and rental
of video and/or audio cassettes, tapes and discs (including
CD-ROMs and CD-i’s) and of video games (computer
television receiving apparatus and
games);
decoders; education, providing of training, entertainment;
sporting and cultural activities; conducting competitions
in the fields of training, teaching, entertainment and
sports; distance learning courses; publishing books, per-
iodicals and other printed matter and associated electronic
media (including CD-ROMs and CD-i’s); conducting
concert, theatre and entertainment events and sporting
competitions; production of films and videos and radio
and television programmes of a training, teaching and
entertaining nature, including such production for children
and young people; production, reproduction, showing and
rental of sound and image recordings on video and/or
audio cassettes, tapes and discs; theatrical performances
and orchestra services’ within Class 41;

— ‘Issuing, negotiating, rental and other exploitation of
rights to films, television and video productions and other
image and sound programmes; copyright and industrial
property rights exploitation for others; exploitation of film
and television ancillary rights in the field of merchandis-
ing; software development, in particular in the fields of
multimedia, interactive television and Pay-TV; operation
of networks for the transfer of messages, images, text,
speech and data; technical consultancy in the field of
multimedia, interactive television and Pay-TV (included
including video
in class 42); computer programming,
and computer games; arranging and allocating of user
passwords for users of various communication networks’
within Class 42;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

4. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.