Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2003 in Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud v European Parliament (Officials — Pension — Weighting applicable — Proof of residence — Suspension of measure — Effect on the burden of proof)
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, France, action for annulment (EU), pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, residence

C 213/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 July 2003

in Case T-162/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI —
Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVER-
LY HILLS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2003/C 213/61)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case T-162/01, Laboratorios RTB, SL, established in Bigues
i Riells (Spain), represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer, v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and J.F. Crespo
Carrillo), 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: Giorgio Beverly Hills,
Inc., established in Santa Monica, California (United States of
America): Action brought against the decision of the First
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2001
(Case R 122/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and
M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar has given a
judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.

of 9 July 2003

in Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Colours — Combination of
orange and grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinc-
tive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94)

(2003/C 213/62)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG, established in
Waiblingen (Germany), represented by S. Völker and A. Klett,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — appli-
cation for annulment of the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 July 2001 (Case R 477/2000-
1), refusing registration of a combination of the colours orange
and grey as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: B. Pastor,
Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2003 in
which it:

(1) Dismisses the action.

(2) Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ 2001 C 348.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2003

in Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud v European Parlia-
ment (1)

(Officials — Pension — Weighting applicable — Proof of
residence — Suspension of measure — Effect on the burden
of proof)

(2003/C 213/63)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud, former official of the
European Parliament, residing in Nice (France), represented by

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/33

(Agents:

L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against European Parliament
J. de Wachter and
G. Knudsen) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 refusing to consider that
the applicant’s place of residence is in Nice and apply the
weighting for France to her retirement pension from 1 January
2000 and, second, of
the Parliament of
6 December 2001 expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint
— the Court of First Instance (single judge: A.W.H. Meij);
I. Natsinas, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003 in
which it:

the decision of

1.

dismissed the application;

2.

ordered each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ No C 144 of 15.6.2002.

1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 in so
far as it applies to the applicant’s pension the weighting
applicable to Luxembourg for the whole of the year 2000.

2. Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.

( 1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 June 2003

in Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt v European Central
Bank (1)

(Officials — Employee of the European Central Bank —
Written reprimand)

(2003/C 213/64)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt, member of staff of
the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer, against the
European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot and T. Gilliams,
assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — application for annul-
ment of the decision of 1 March 2002, taken by Mr Noyer,
Vice President of the European Central Bank, to issue a written
reprimand to the applicant — the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a
judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 3 April 2003

in Case T-119/02: Royal Philips Electronics NV v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Com-
mitments in the course of the first phase of examination —
Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market
— Partial referral to national authorities)

(2003/C 213/65)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-119/02, Royal Philips Electronics NV, established at
Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk
and N.G. Cronstedt, lawyers, supported by De–Longhi SpA,
established in Treviso (Italy), represented by M. Merola,
I. van Schendel, G. Crichlow and D.P. Domenicucci, lawyers, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Superti,
K. Wiedner and J.E. Flynn), supported by SEB SA, established in
Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot and S. Hautbourg,
lawyers, and by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and F. Million): Application for annulment of,
the
Commission’s decision SG(2002) D/228078 of 8 January
2002, based on Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of Regulation
No 4064/89 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European
Economic Area, not to oppose the concentration between SEB
and Moulinex and to declare it compatible with the common
market and with the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, subject to compliance with the proposed commitments
(Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex) and, second,
the
Commission’s decision C(2002)38, of 8 January 2002, adopted
on the basis of Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89,
referring part of the examination of that concentration to the
French authorities, the Court of First Instance(Third Chamber),
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,

first,