Case T-9/04: Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), occupational accident, toxic substance

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/27

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of
Commission.

the

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

rejection of the opposition

(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.

Action brought on 1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert
René S. à r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-336/03)

(2004/C 85/53)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
been drafted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert René S. à r.l., of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Orange A/S, of
Copenhagen.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

partial rejection of the application
in respect of goods and services in
Classes 9 and 35. For the rest,
dismissal of the appeal lodged by
the applicant

Grounds of claim:

— The trade mark opposed is a

well-known mark;

— The trade mark opposed is
also
against
protected
exploitation outside the area
of similarity in respect of
goods and services;

— There is a significant simi-
larity between the marks.

Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-9/04)

(2004/C 85/54)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: Italian)

— annul the decision adopted on 14 July 2003 by the
Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
No R 559/2002-4;

— order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Orange A/S

the verbal mark ‘MOBILIX’
for
goods and services in Classes 9,
16, 35, 37, 38 and 42 — Appli-
cation No 671 396

the applicant

The Community trade
mark applied for:

Proprietor of the trade-
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:

Trade-mark right
opposed:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting

his request;

— Declare that on 29 October 2001, the applicant, then in
the service of the Angola Delegation, was the victim of
an accident at work, which occurred therein;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the national verbal and Com-
munity mark ‘OBELIX’ for goods
and services in, inter alia, Class-
es 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42

The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to treat
as an accident at work, with the consequential benefits
provided for in the Staff Regulations in relation to insurance
the
against risks of occupational accidents and diseases,

C 85/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

incident in which he was the victim on 29 October 2001,
whilst he was carrying out his functions at
the Angola
Delegation. That incident occurred when his hands came into
contact with a whitish powder of an as yet unknown chemical-
toxicological nature.

The applicant asserts that that incident affected his psychologi-
cal and physical well-being, adversely affecting his social life.

In support of those claims, the applicant alleges an absolute
failure to state reasons and a breach of the regulations cited
above.

Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Ermioni Komnin-
ou and 16 others against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-42/04)

(2004/C 85/55)

(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 10 February 2004 by Ermioni
Komninou, Grigorios Dokos, Donatos Pappas, Vasilios Pappas,
Aristidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa,
Alexandra Dokou, Leonidas Grepis, Nikolaos Grepis, Fotios
Dimitriou, Zois Dimitriou, Petros Polosis, Despina Polosi,
Konstantinos Polosis and Thomas Polosis, resident in Parga, in
the prefecture of Preveza, Greece, represented by Pericles
Stroumpos, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

letter that no further action would be taken on their complaint.
The applicants complained to the European Ombudsman
about the Commission’s treatment of their complaint to it.
The European Ombudsman’s decision was issued on 18 July
2002. On 2 July 2003 the applicants lodged a fresh complaint
with the Commission alleging new infringements relating to
the same case. However, the Commission decided to continue
financing the project.

The applicants claim that they should be awarded compen-
sation, pleading non-material damage resulting from the
Commission’s treatment of their complaints. More specifically,
they plead that the Commission withheld information from
them and misled them with regard to the progress of the case.
That is to say, while initially and after receipt of their first
complaint the Commission officials considered that Greece
had not complied in the present case with the rules laid down
by Directive 85/337, they subsequently changed their view
and decided to fund the project, without, however, informing
the applicants of that decision. In addition, the applicants allege
that the Commission’s rejection of their original complaint is
based on a statement of reasons that is manifestly contrary to
Community law. They further submit that in its handling of
their original complaint the Commission did not observe
fundamental rules of impartiality, since the case was assigned
to an official who subsequently engaged in political activity in
Greece. Finally, the applicants plead that the Commission failed
to take the necessary measures to remedy the abovementioned
forms of maladministration despite the fact that the European
Ombudsman found infringements on the part of the Com-
mission and despite the second complaint which the applicants
submitted.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40).

— allow the present application for compensation;

Removal from the register of Case T-273/99 (1)

— order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay to each applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 with
interest prescribed by law at a rate of 8 % from the
judgment of the Court of First Instance until payment;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1995 the applicants submitted a complaint to the European
Commission, alleging infringement by the Greek authorities of
Directive 85/337 (1) in relation to the planning and construc-
tion of a biological sewage treatment plant in Preveza. By
decision No C(1998) 2297 of 28 July 1998, the Commission
decided to finance that project from the Cohesion Fund. On
20 April 1999 the Commission informed the applicants by

(2004/C 85/56)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

By order of 18 December 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber (Extented Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-273/99: Autoservice J. Van Deursen B.V. v
Commission of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.