Case T-333/02: Action brought on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro Amnistía association, Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen Zelarain Errasti against Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), association, fight against crime, rights of the defence, terrorism

C 19/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
17 October 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim relief is rejected.

Costs are reserved.

In that regard, the applicant takes the view that, having failed
to adopt general rules authorising the reversal of management
duties, the Secretary General improperly adopted the contested
decision. The duties actually carried out by the applicant since
the adoption of that decision are moreover manifestly inferior
to those normally carried out by an official in Grade A 3.

Action brought on 14 October 2002 by Michel Soubies
against Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro
Amnistía association, Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen
Zelarain Errasti against Council of the European Union

(Case T-325/02)

(2003/C 19/69)

(Case T-333/02)

(2003/C 19/70)

(Language of the case: French)

(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 14 October 2002 by Michel
Soubies, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 26 November 2001 of the Secretary
General of the Commission posting the applicant, as A
3 adviser ad personam, to Unit SG/F.2 ‘Institutional
matters’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official
in Grade A 3, is challenging the
decision of the appointing authority to appoint him adviser ad
personam in Unit SG/F.2 ‘Institutional matters’, where the
head of unit was appointed in Grade A 5.

In support of his claims, he alleges:

— breach of the obligation to state reasons;

— breach of the procedure for filling middle-management
posts, infringement of Articles 4, 5, 27 and 29 of the
Staff Regulations and breach of the principles of good
management and sound administration and of the prin-
ciple that officials should have reasonable career pros-
pects.

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro
Amnistía association, whose offices are in Hernani (Spain),
Juan Mari Olano Olano, residing in Gainza (Spain), and Julen
Zelarain Errasti, residing in San Sebastián (Spain), represented
by Didier Rouget, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
EUR 1 000 000 to the Gestoras Pro Amnistía association
and EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants,
Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen Zelarain Errasti;

— find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
rate of 4.5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
payment is effected;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay

those incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Gestoras Pro Amnistía association and two representatives
are seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as
a result of the abovementioned association’s name having been
included in the list of terrorist persons, groups and bodies,
pursuant to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1), adopted on
27 December 2001, confirmed by Council Common Position
2002/340/CFSP (2), adopted on 2 May 2001, and Council
Common Position 2002/940/CFSP (3), adopted on 17 June
2002.

25.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/37

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are identical
to those in Case T-338/02.

Pleas in law and main arguments

( 1) Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the
application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344,
of 28.12.2001, p. 93.

( 2) Council Common Position of 2 May 2002 updating Common
Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
to combat terrorism, OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.

( 3) Council Common Position of 17 June 2002 updating Common
Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/
CFSP, OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.

Action brought on 13 November 2002 by B.V. Bureau
Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport
en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-340/02)

(2003/C 19/71)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2002 by B.V.
Bureau Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij, with its registered office in IJsmuiden (Nether-
lands), represented by M.J.J.M. Essers.

The pleas in law submitted are identical to those in Case
T-326/02.

Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-
Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmon-
ization in the Internal Market

(Case T-342/02)

(2003/C 19/72)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 November 2002 by Metro-
Goldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation, Santa Monica, California
(United States of America), represented by Fernand de Visscher,
Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse, Donatienne Moreau, avocats.
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Moser Grupo Media, S.L., Santa Eulalia Del Rio (Baleares -
Spain).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the claim for annulment;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

5 September 2002;

— annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of

(1)

(2)

Primarily, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June
2002 (C(2002) 2158 final) concerning State aid provided
by the Netherlands for the activities of Netherlands
tugboats operating within seaports and on inland water-
ways of the Community;

In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the contested
Commission decision, in which the Commission requires
the Netherlands Government inter alia to adopt all
measures necessary to recover the aid from recipients,
with the exception of that aid which was granted prior to
12 September 1990;

— confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of
19 February 2001 insofar as it upholds the Opposition
number B 47730 for all the contested goods and services
and rejects application for registration no 409664 in its
entirety on the basis of applicant’s national registrations
of the trademark ‘MGM’;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 Feb-
ruary 2001 insofar as it does not admit as ground for
rejection applicant’s CTM no 141820 of the trademark
‘MGM’ or, in subsidiary order, insofar as it does not admit
as ground for rejection the earlier national trade mark
registrations in Austria, Greece and the United Kingdom;

(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

— condemn the Office to the costs of the proceedings.