Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Case T-71/02: Classen Holding KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Admissibility of appeal before the Board of Appeal — Formal requirements — Filing of a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Time-limit for applying for restitutio in integrum — Articles 59 and 78 of Regulation No 40/94)
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), pulp and paper industry, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 275/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

applicant in December 1996 and September 1997, the Court
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September
2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 October 2001
refusing the applications for co-financing made by the applicant
in December 1996 and September 1997.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant in

addition to its own costs.

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 17 September 2003

in Case T-71/02: Classen Holding KG v Office for Harmon-
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Admissibility of appeal before
the Board of Appeal — Formal requirements — Filing of a
written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Time-
limit for applying for restitutio in integrum — Articles 59
and 78 of Regulation No 40/94)

(2003/C 275/72)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-71/02, Classen Holding KG, established in Essen
(Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen), the intervener before
the Court of First Instance being International Paper Co.,
established in New York, New York (United States of America),
represented by E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer: Action brought
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 14 December 2001 (Case R 810/1999-2)
declaring inadmissible, following rejection of the application
for restitutio in integrum, the appeal brought against the
decision of the Opposition Division in opposition proceedings
between Classen Holding KG and International Paper Co., the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
J. Plingers,
President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 September 2003, in which it:

(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 17 September 2003

in Case T-76/02: Mara Messina v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Access to documents —
Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member
State without the prior agreement of that State)

(2003/C 275/73)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-76/02, Mara Messina, residing at Naples (Italy),
lawyer, v Commission of the
represented by M. Calabrese,
European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker, V. Di Bucci and
P. Aalto): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents
relating to the State aid scheme which was the subject of the
Commission’s Decision of 2 August 2000 (State Aid N 715/
99 — Italy (SG 2000 D/10574), the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tii-
li, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
ras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2003, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the applicant to bear half her own costs. Orders the
Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
applicant’s costs.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.