Case T-196/03: Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), animal experimentation, chemical product, consumer protection, cosmetic product

C 184/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
trade mark:

for Community

Community
sought:

trade mark

Marine Enterprise Projects So-
cietà Unipersonale di Alberto
Fiorenzi S.r.l.

‘BAIN-
The
figurative mark
BRIDGE’ — Application for re-
gistration No 940007 requested
in Classes 18
for products
of
and
(Leather
leather,
hides;
animal
trunks and travelling bags; um-
brellas, parasols
and walking
sticks; whips, harness and sadd-
lery) and 25 (Clothing,
foot-
wear, headgear).

imitations
skins,

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition pro-
ceedings:

The Applicant

Mark or sign cited in op-
position:

‘THE

BRIDGE’

for products

for products

Italian
marks
figurative
‘BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 370836 and
for
704338)
in
products
the figurative mark
Class 25,
‘THE BRIDGE BASKET’
(Reg.
No 593651)
in
Classes 18 and 25, trade name
‘THE
BRIDGE’
(Reg.
in
No 642952)
Class 25, the three-dimensional
marks
(Reg.
No 704372 and No 633349)
for products in Classes 18 and
‘FOOT-
trade name
the
25,
BRIDGE’
(Reg. No 710102) for
products in Classes 18 and 25,
‘THE
the
figurative mark
BRIDGE WAYFARER’
(Reg.
in
No 721569)
the trade
Classes 18 and 25,
BRIDGE’
‘OVER THE
name
(Reg. No 630763) for products
in Classes 18 and 25, and the
trade name ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 642953)
in
Class 18.

for products

for products

Decision of the Opposition
Division:

Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board of

Dismissal of the appeal.

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(Risk of confusion).

Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation
the European
for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against

Parliament and the Council of the European Union

(Case T-196/03)

(2003/C 184/107)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 2003 by
European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EffCI), Brussels,
Belgium, represented by Mr K. Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the application applicable and well founded, or, in
join the questions on admissibility to the

the alternative,
examination of the substance

the European Parliament

— Order the partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive
2003/15/EC (1) of
and the
Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive
76/768/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to cosmetic products, so as to
remove the new Article 4a (2) and (2.1) ; Article 4b and
the new sub-paragraph added to Article 6(3) of
the
Directive 76/768/EEC.

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in the

proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is a European Economic Interest Grouping
representing European manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients.
The provisions of Directive 2003/15/EC which it attacks
concern the prohibition of the performance of animal testing
on chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetic products as well
as the prohibition of all uses in cosmetic products of certain
chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
reproduction.

In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
the prohibition of animal testing, the applicant advances the
following grounds:

— The alleged infringement of essential procedural require-
ments. The applicant claims that the contested measure is
legal basis. According to the
based on an incorrect
applicant, although it is based on Article 95 of the EC
treaty it is not intended to eliminate obstacles to the free
movement of goods or remove distortions of competition.
the applicant advances an alleged misuse of
Further,
the contested measure is, according to
in that
powers,
the applicant, intended to promote the welfare of animals
which is not part of the internal market objectives of the
EC. Finally,
contested
measure does not contain adequate reasons and due
motivation.

the applicant

claims

that

the

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/51

— An alleged infringement of

the EC Treaty and of
secondary Community legislation in that
the contested
measure actually infringes Article 95(3) and Directive 76/
768/EEC which
harmonisation
require Community
measures to be based on a ‘high level of protection’ of
health, safety, environment and consumers.

— The applicant also advances a manifest error of assess-
ment in that the contested measure allegedly fails to take
account of scientific assessments made by the Community
advisory bodies.

In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
the
the prohibition of carcinogenic and similar substances,
applicant advances the following grounds:

— An alleged manifest error of assessment and inconsistency
with Directive 76/768/EEC. According to the applicant the
inconsistent with the risk-based
contested measure is
approach in the latter Directive.

— An alleged infringement of

in that

an essential procedural
the prohibition should have been
requirement,
made subject
to the prior consultation and positive
opinion of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products
and Non Food Products
in
intended for Consumers,
accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 76/768/EEC.

— An alleged infringement Article 95(3) of the EC Treaty

and the rules adopted for its application,

Further,
the applicant alleges that both contested provisions
infringe superior principles of Community law, namely the
legal certainty and legitimate
principles of proportionality,
expectations,
the principle of
consistency, the principle of equal treatment and the need to
consider the balance of interests.

the precautionary principle,

(1) OJ L 66, 11.3.2003, p. 26-35.
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169-200.

Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Proras S.r.l. Engi-
the
neering and Contracting against Commission of

European Communities

(Case T-197/03)

(2003/C 184/108)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities on 30 May 2003 by Proras S.r.l.
Engineering and Contracting,
represented by Gian Michele
Roberti, Alessandro Maria Lerro, Marco Simone Mariani, Paolo
Ziotti and Isabella Perego, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the

decision of

European Commission
the
contained in the letter of 19 March 2003 from Mr P.B.
Knudsen, Director of Directorate A — Office of Coopera-
‘Proras exclusion from
tion, EuropeAid, D(2003) D/8511,
participation in a TACIS procurement procedure’;

— find the Commission liable

in damages

for having

adopted the abovementioned decision;

— order the defendant to make good the injury suffered by
the applicant as a result of
that damage, quantified at
EUR 1 177 638,24 and further order the publication of
any judgment to that effect;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, Proras S.r.l. Engineering and Contracting
(hereinafter ‘Proras’ or ‘the applicant’) is challenging the deci-
sion of the Commission contained in the letter of 19 March
2003 from Mr P.B. Knudsen, Director of Directorate A —
‘Proras
Office of Cooperation, EuropeAid, D(2003) D/8511,
exclusion from participation in a TACIS procurement proce-
dure’ by which it imposes, on the basis of Article 93(c) and (f)
in conjunction with Article 96 of Regulation No 1605/
2002, (1) a sanction consisting in exclusion for
two years
from tender procedures organised in the context of external
actions funded by the Commission in the framework of the
TACIS programme and, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288 EC,
compensation for
that
decision. That decision was adopted after a procedure which
contained a number of irregularities, denied by the applicant,
which, according to the defendant, were committed in the
SCR — E/110983/D/S/NI,
course
published by the unit ‘Programma de apoyo al Sector Educa-
tivo en Nicaragua’ and financed under the ‘ALA’ programme.

the damage suffered as a result of

procedure

tender

of

In support of its action for annulment, Proras puts forward
four pleas in law. First, the applicant claims that the EuropeAid
department, by adopting as a legal basis for the contested
decision a provision — such as Regulation No 1605/2002 —
which had not entered into force at the material time, has
infringed the principles of retroactivity, lawfulness of sanctions
and legitimate expectations. So far as concerns procedure, the
applicant criticises the aforementioned department for failing
to inform it of the steps it intended to take in terms of the
sanctions it proposed to impose on it or, at the very least,