Case T-309/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós Grau against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), fraud

15.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/47

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

The applicant in this case

Pleas in law and main arguments

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

The German word mark ‘SOLEVI-
TA’ for goods in Class 32

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Rejection of the opposition

Community trade mark
sought:

Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal

applicant has

The
submitted
adequate evidence of genuine use
of the opposing mark;

— Infringement of the maxim
of party disposition laid
down in the second sentence
of Article 74(1) of Regu-
lation 40/94;

— Failure to respect the right to

be heard.

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

The applicant in this case

The word/figurative mark ‘Opus-
Dent’ for goods and services in
Classes 9, 10 and 42 (inter alia,
lasers, not for medical purposes;
medical, dental
and aesthetic
lasers; medical and dental treat-
ment)
Application
No 1331230

—

Dornier Medizintechnik GmbH

trade mark
The Community
‘Opus’ for goods in Class 10 (inter
alia, medical tables for examin-
ations and treatment, X-ray appar-
atus and X-ray work stations)

The opposition was upheld in
respect of the goods ‘medical, den-
tal and aesthetic lasers’ and reject-
ed in respect of the remaining
goods and services

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by OpusDent
the Office for Harmonisation in the
GmbH against

Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

No likelihood of confusion

(Case T-305/03)

(2003/C 275/79)

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

An action against the 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
8 September 2003 by OpusDent GmbH, Freising (Germany),
represented by P. Munzinger, lawyer. Dornier Medizintechnik
GmbH, Weßling (Germany), was also a party to the proceed-
ings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós
Grau against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-309/03)

(2003/C 275/80)

(Language of the case: French)

— annul the decision of 23 June 2003 of the Second Board
of Appeal of the defendant in Case R 579/2002-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Manel Grau,
residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer.

C 275/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 17 May 2002 of OLAF or its
Director removing one of the investigators from the
Office’s investigation into the IRELA owing to a conflict
of interests on his part, in that it left standing measures
adopted by that investigator to which he contributed;

— annul the decision of 29 November 2002 of OLAF or its
Director rejecting by implication the applicant’s adminis-
trative complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision;

— annul

the report of 17 October 2002 closing the
investigation in to IRELA or the decision of its Director
adopting that report or its conclusions;

the objectivity of OLAF investigations, in that the contested
report was drawn up without the assistance of the sole
investigator who remained authorised.

(1) Communicated in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 44.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
of
conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published
in OJ L 136 of 31.05.1999, pp. 1-7.

— annul the decision of 28 May 2003 of the Director of
OLAF rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint
of 4 February 2003 against that report;

Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring
GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council
of the European Union

— order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
sation, evaluated provisionally and ex aequo et bono at
EUR 10 000, for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant a provisional
sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the harm to
his career;

— order the Commission to reimburse the fees which he
has incurred in his defence in the investigation and the
administrative complaints against the contested decision
and report;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official with the defendant, has already
brought an action before the Court (T-96/03) (1) also seeking
annulment of the OLAF’s decision of 12 May 2002 and
claiming damages. By the present action, the applicant repeats
the forms of order already submitted in his first action, but
also attacks the report closing the inquiry. In support of the
present action, he relies first of all on the pleas already raised
in Case T-96/03.

(Case T-311/03)

(2003/C 275/81)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 12 September 2003 by
Nürburgring GmbH,
represented by Dr H.-J. Rabe, and
Dr M.A. Dauses.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation
of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States relating to the advertising and
sponsorship of tobacco products, and Article 5(1) thereof
in particular, void;

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

He then relies on two further pleas. The first alleges breach of
the principles of the rights of the defence, legitimate expec-
tations and proper administration, and also of Commission
Decision 396/96 on the terms and conditions for internal
investigations. The second plea alleges breach of Articles 6 and
9 of Regulation No 1073/1999 (2), and also the principle of

The applicant organises Formula 1 car racing at the Nürburg-
ring. Tobacco companies make substantial contributions to
support such racing events. The applicant submits that,
because of the prohibition in Article 5(1) of the directive, there
is a danger that Formula 1 racing will no longer be held at the
Nürburgring.