Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2003 In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01: Philip Morris International Inc. and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Decision to bring legal proceedings before a court in a non-Member State — Action for annulment — Concept of decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Admissibility)
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Japan, United States, action for annulment (EU), customs duties, fraud against the EU, tobacco industry

C 70/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 23 January 2003

of 15 January 2003

in Case T-53/00: Serena Angioli v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01
and T-272/01: Philip Morris International Inc. and Others
v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials — Action for annulment — Internal competition
for the establishment of members of the temporary staff
— Non-inclusion on the list of suitable candidates —
Confidentiality of the work of the selection board)

(Decision to bring legal proceedings before a court in a non-
Member State — Action for annulment — Concept of
decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of
Article 230 EC — Admissibility)

(2003/C 70/31)

(Language of the case: French)

(2003/C 70/32)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-53/00: Serena Angioli, residing in Brussels, represent-
ed by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 May 1999 not
to include the applicant on the list of suitable candidates in
Internal Competition COM/TA/2/98 for the establishment of
members of the temporary staff, and for annulment of all
subsequent measures taken by the selection board for the
competition and by the appointing authority — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-
Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,
Judges;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 23 January 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:

1.

The application is dismissed;

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.

In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and
T-272/01, Philip Morris International, Inc., established in Rye
Brook, New York (United States), represented by É. Morgan de
Rivery and J. Derenne, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, applicant
in Cases T-377/00 and T-272/01,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina (United States), RJR Acquisition Corp.,
established in Wilmington, New Castle, Delaware (United
States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, established in Jersey
City, New Jersey (United States), R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco
Inc., established in Dover, Kent, Delaware
International,
(United States),
represented by P. Lomas, Solicitor, and
O. Brouwer, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, applicants in Cases T-379/00 and T-260/01, Japan
Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by
P. Lomas, Solicitor, and O. Brouwer, Lawyer, with an address
in Case T-380/00, v
for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
X. Lewis and C. Ladenburger, and, subsequently, C. Docksey
and Ladenburger), supported by European Parliament (Agents:
R. Passos and A. Baas), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
Italian
Lapuerta), French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues),
Republic (Agent: U. Leanza), Portuguese Republic (Agents:
L. Fernandes and Â. Cortesão de Seiça Neves), Republic of
Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin), in Cases T-377/
00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01, Federal
Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma),
Hellenic Republic (Agent: V. Kontolaimos), in Cases T-260/01
and T-272/01, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: in Cases
T-260/01 and T-272/01, H. Sevenster and, in Case T-379/00,
Sevenster and J. van Bakel): Applications for annulment of two
decisions by the Commission to commence legal proceedings
against the applicants before a federal court in the United

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/21

States of America, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A. W. H. Meij,
Judges, Registrar:
J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a
judgment on 15 January 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and

severally, the costs incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001 and C 3 of 5.1.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 January 2003

in Case T-171/01: Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécom-
munications en Europe (IDATE) v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Arbitration clause — Community Trans-European Telecom-
munications Networks Programme — Contract relating
to the organisation of seminars on using Euro-ISDN —
Allowable costs)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(2003/C 70/34)

of 12 December 2002

(Language of the case: French)

in Case T-110/01: Vedial SA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Earlier word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 — Application for
a figurative Community mark including the word ‘HUBERT’
— Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion
— Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2003/C 70/33)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-110/01: Vedial SA, a company established in Ludres,
France, represented by T. van Innis and G. Glas, Lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
Hamonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)
(OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly), the other party to the proceedings
before the board of appeal of the Office for Hamonisation in
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) being France
Distribution, a company established in Emerainville, France —
appeal against the decision of the first board of appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
and designs) of 9 March 2001 (Case R 127/2000-1) — the
Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 12 December 2002, in which it:

1. Dismissed the action;

2. Ordered each party to bear its costs.

( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.

In Case T-171/01, Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécommuni-
cations en Europe (IDATE), established in Montpellier (France),
represented by H. Calvet, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Shotter and J.-L. Fagnart):
Application for a declaration by the Court of First Instance
that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for the
purposes of the contract concluded between the Commission
and the applicant
the Trans-European
in the context of
Telecommunications Networks Programme, covers the whole
of the costs invoiced by the applicant’s subcontractors under
that contract and, in the alternative, for compensation for the
loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the
breaches committed by the Commission in the performance
of that contract, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 15 January 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for
the purposes of the contract at issue, covers the whole of the
costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under that
contract.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.