Case T-314/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée Grévin against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), development plan, joint venture

15.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/49

The applicant claims that there was a procedural defect in the
adoption of the directive. The version of the directive adopted
by the Council differs on several points from the version
adopted by the European Parliament. That constitutes a breach
of Article 251 EC. Furthermore, it submits that Article 95 EC
does not constitute a sufficient legal basis. Despite its apparent
limitation to cross-border sponsorship, Article 5(1) entails a
general prohibition on sponsoring for tobacco products.
However, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice in
Case C-376/98 (1) Article 95 EC does not justify a general ban
on sponsoring.

The applicant argues further that the selection of Article 95 EC
as the legal basis allowed the prohibition on harmonisation in
Article 152(4) to be circumvented. The applicant also claims
that the vague wording of the sponsorship ban breaches the
requirement of clarity which is the expression of the principle
of legal certainty fundamental to Community law.

Finally, the applicant points out that Article 5(1) of the
directive is a disproportionate measure,
in view both of
the purported internal market objectives of the Community
legislature and of the health protection aims actually pursued
and thus breaches a founding principle of the European Union.
Moreover, the ban infringes the fundamental property rights
of the applicant.

(1) Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR

I-8419.

Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-313/03)

(2003/C 275/82)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decisions of 11 December 2002 and 11 June
2003 approving the applicant’s staff report for 1999-
2001;

Instance,

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First
together with the expenses
necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings
and, in particular, the expenses relating to the address
for service,
travel and subsistence expenses and the
remuneration of lawyers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of
those rules.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of
assessment. The applicant further alleges abuse of power.

Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée
Grévin against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-314/03)

(2003/C 275/83)

(Language of the Case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Société
Musée Grévin, having its registered office in Paris, represented
by Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, avocat.

— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2003 requiring
Société Musée Grévin to reimburse the amounts allegedly
overpaid to it;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

C 275/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant received a grant from the Commission in 1996
within the framework of a project to create a joint venture
with a Polish undertaking. The request for a grant was based
on application of a regional development plan entitled ‘Joint
Venture PHARE TACIS Program’. Following an investigation
carried out
the applicant’s premises and an
exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the
Commission, the latter, by a missive of 8 July 2003, instructed
the bank acting as financial intermediary for the development
plan to effect full recovery of the funds paid to the applicant.
It is this notification which constitutes the decision under
challenge by the applicant.

in 2002 at

In support of its action, the applicant first invokes an alleged
breach of the provisions of Regulation No 1 (1) inasmuch as
the contested decision was drafted in English and not in
French, even though it was addressed to the applicant, which
is a French company. The applicant also pleads an alleged
failure to comply with the four-year limitation period laid
down in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The
applicant further submits that the contested decision, which
was not signed by the competent Commissioner but by a Head
infringes the principle of
of Unit and an administrator,
collegiate responsibility and originates from an authority
lacking competence.

The applicant contends further that the contested decision is
vitiated by a substantive inaccuracy as to the facts, lacks any
legal basis, fails to satisfy the obligation to state reasons, and
infringes the principles of proportionality and audi alteram
partem and the right to due process.

(1) Regulation No 1 of the Council determining the languages to be
used by the European Economic Community (OJ English Special
Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
interests (OJ L 312 of 23.12.1995, pp. 1 to 4).

— annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2003 (Case R 85/2002-
3);

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned:

‘LIVE RICHLY’ (word) — Appli-
cation No. 2112647.

Products or services:

‘Financial and monetary services
and real estate affairs; in particu-
lar: banking; credit card; commer-
cial and consumer lending and
financing; real estate and mort-
gage brokerage; trust, estate and
fiduciary management, planning
and consulting;
investment and
investment advisory and con-
sulting; securities brokerage and
trading services facilitating secure
financial
insurance
transactions,
services; in particular, underwrit-
ing and sales of property, casualty
and life insurance policies and
annuity contracts’ (Class 36)

Challenged
before
Appeal:

Decision
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Pleas in law:

Violation of Articles 7(1)(b) and
73, first and second sentences, of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH
and Others against European Parliament and Council of
the European Union

(Case T-320/03)

(2003/C 275/84)

(Case T-321/03)

(2003/C 275/85)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Citicorp,
New York (USA),
represented by Dr V. von Bomhard,
Dr A. Pohlmann and Dr. A. Renck, lawyers.

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 8 September 2003 by Juckem GmbH and 244
other companies, represented by D. Waalbroeck and N. Ram-
pal, avocats.