Case T-259/03: Action brought on 21 July 2003 by "Z" against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-11-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, appeal, confidentiality, disclosure of information, fundamental rights, personal data, protection of privacy

1.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/27

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc. against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Grounds of claim:

(Case T-243/03)

(2003/C 264/48)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc.,
Atlanta (USA), represented by G. Farrington, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— The mark applied for is not
devoid of any distinctive
character within the mean-
ing of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/
94 (1).

— The mark applied for is not
the
of
normal means
designating services in the
field of transportation, stor-
age and travel.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-

munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

— annul the decision of the Defendant’s Second Board of

Appeal of 28 April 2003;

Action brought on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’ against the
Commission of the European Communities

— order the Defendant to remit the application to its
Examination Division for re-examination of Community
Trade Mark number 1713213;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The trade mark con-
cerned:

The word mark ‘PENSAMOS MÁS
EN USTED’ — application
No 1713213

Goods or service con-
cerned:

Services in Class 39 (transpor-
tation, storage and travel services;
transportation of passengers and
cargo, frequent flyer bonus pro-
grams)

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

(Case T-259/03)

(2003/C 264/49)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’, resident in
Athens, Greece, represented by Vasilios Christianos, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay to her by way of damages,
with interest from the time at which the damage or
harm arose,
the sum of EUR 900 000, comprising
EUR 700 000 for non-material damage which she has
suffered and EUR 200 000 for harm suffered to her
health;

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

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

C 264/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.11.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

and its final report and thus denied her any possibility of
exercising her rights of defence effectively.

An investigation in relation to the applicant was ordered and
carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). After
the investigation had been completed, certain items appeared
in the European press referring to the applicant and the
investigation of her, such that the applicant considers them
disparaging and offensive. In addition, OLAF issued a press
release concerning the investigation and also included a
reference to it in its annual activity report. Although she was
not referred to by name in the documents made public by
OLAF, the applicant considers that the information which was
given made it particularly easy to identify her, so that it was
clear who was in question. Also, after the investigation had
been completed, the applicant requested OLAF to disclose to
her the file which it had drawn up on her, its final report and
any other information concerning what its findings were on
the accusations against her. However, OLAF refused to disclose
anything at all to her.

The applicant seeks, by her action, compensation for the non-
material damage and harm to her health which she claims to
have suffered for the abovementioned reasons. She pleads in
support of her action:

— Infringement by OLAF of

the second subparagraph
of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 1073/1999 (1),
in
conjunction with Directive 95/46 (2) and Regulation
No 45/2001 (3). The applicant submits that it follows, on
reading the foregoing provisions in conjunction with
each other, that OLAF is obliged, when publishing reports
of its activities, to provide information in such a way that
the identity of the person to whom the investigation
relates is not revealed, directly or indirectly.

— Infringement by OLAF of Article 8(2) of Regulation
No 1073/1999 in that it accepted or acquiesced in, and
ultimately allowed, the leaking of information to the
press regarding the investigation in relation to the
applicant.

— Infringement of Article 8(2) and (3) of Regulation
No 1073/1999 which, in the applicant’s submission,
prohibits OLAF from publishing press releases relating to
investigations which it carries out.

— Infringement by OLAF of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 6 of
Regulation No 1073/1999, of Article 4 of Decision 99-
50 of the Court of Auditors of 16 December 1999, and
of the more general obligation to observe the right to
good administration in accordance with Article 41 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
since it refused to disclose to the applicant the file on her

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
of
the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136,
31.5.1999, p. 1).

(2) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
(OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-261/03)

(2003/C 264/50)

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: English)

An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l., Barletta, (Italy), represent-
ed by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg. RCN-Companhia de Importaçao e Esportaçao de Texte-
is, LDA. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— cancel or amed the decision of the Second Board of

Appeal of OHIM no. R0067/2001-2;

— consequently to order the registration of the trademark
‘GLOVE’ also for class 25 as requested by the firm Euro
Style ’94 S.r.l.;

— order to bear the costs according to regulation.