Case T-254/02: Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: access to information, action for annulment (EU), legal aid, occupational disease

C 261/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.10.2002

Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton
Marine and Palace Pier Company against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-252/02)

(2002/C 261/34)

(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 21 August 2002 by the Brighton
Marine and Palace Pier Company, Jarrow, Tyne and Wear
(United Kingdom), represented by C. Vajda QC and T. Usher,
Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of 9 April 2002 both in respect of the
conclusions under Article 87(1) and Article 87(3)(d) of
the EC Treaty;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant operates the Brighton Palace Pier.
In the
contested Decision, the Commission held that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier did not involve state aid and
declared, in the alternative, any aid to be compatible with the
common market. The applicant points out that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier involves the participation of a private
partner, St. Modwen. This partner will, after the restoration,
exploit the pier and adjacent lands commercially. This would
create a direct competitor for the applicant since the West Pier,
which is situated only 1,2 kilometres away from the Palace
Pier, would then offer the same services and attractions as the
applicant currently offers.

claims that the Decision would erred in taking into account
only the effect on competition that could arise from the
operation of the heritage centre on the West Pier. Instead, the
Decision should also take into account the effect on compe-
tition and trade that could arise from the management and use
of the new shore end commercial buildings and the commercial
space on the West Pier. According to the applicant, these new
commercial developments would not take place without the
funded restoration of the West Pier.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in
concluding that if there was aid, it was compatible with the
common market under Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
According to the applicant, the Commission failed to weigh
up the benefits of any cultural or heritage objective against the
much larger purely commercial aspects. Furthermore, it failed
to take into account
the potential disadvantages for the
applicant, Palace Pier, which is also an English Heritage listed
building, and relies solely on its commercial viability.

Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-254/02)

(2002/C 261/35)

(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 23 August 2002 by L, residing in
Brussels, represented by Jean Van Rossum, lawyers.

The applicant submits that the Commission erred in conclud-
ing that the measures did not favour St. Modwen. According
to the applicant, the funding of the restoration gives St.
Modwen the opportunity to carry out a large commercial
development of a scale and in a locality which would not
otherwise be possible. This gives St. Modwen a competitive
advantage over the applicant.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 30 April 2002
and the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of
4 February 2002;

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission erred
in concluding that the measures in issue would have no effect
on competition and intra community trade. The applicant

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

26.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests, first, the Commission’s rejection of the
applicant’s request that it institute legal proceedings with
regard to the harassment complained of. Secondly, the appli-
cant contests the implied decision not to recognise the illness
suffered by the applicant, following such harassment, as an
occupational disease.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

The Community trade Word mark ‘RUFFLES’ — Appli-
cation No 000096875, for goods
mark concerned:
in Classes 29 and 30 (food and
condiments)

In support of the action in respect of the first act, the applicant
alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.
In the applicant’s view,
the reasons for the decision are
inconsistent.

Moreover, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(1)
and (2) of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission refuses
to take legal action and in that it refuses to grant the applicant
access to information which it has available to it regarding the
harassing conduct.

In support of the action in respect of the second act, the
applicant alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff
Regulations. The applicant claims not to have received any
reasons for the implied rejection of the request submitted.

Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc.
against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-269/02)

(2002/C 261/36)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

sign
Trade mark or
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Convent Knabber-Gebäck GmbH.

German mark ‘RIFFELS’ registered
for goods in Class 29 (potato
chips)

regards
Application upheld as
‘dried vegetables’
(Class 29) and
‘fine pastry and confectionery’
(Class 30). Application dismissed
regards ‘cereal preparations’
as
(Class 30).

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal dismissed.

Grounds of claim:

Breach of the principles that the
rights of the defence are to be
observed and that reasons must
be provided, in accordance with
Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation
No 40/94, and of co-existence
and comparability between Com-
munity trade marks and national
trade marks

Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di
Napoli against Commission of the European Communities

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc., whose registered office is
in New York (United States of America), represented by
Enrique Armijo Chávarri.

(Case T-272/02)

(2002/C 261/37)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision No 114/2000-1 of the OHIM of 10 June

2002;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 September 2002 by the Munici-
pality of Naples, represented by Massimo Merola, Claudio
Tesauro, Giuseppe Tarallo and Edoardo Barone, lawyers.