Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2004 in Case T-231/02: Piero Gonnelli and Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Acts affecting them individually — Regulation — Marketing norms for olive oil — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), consumer information, marketing standard, olive oil, product quality

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/41

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Third Chamber)

of 2 April 2004

in Case T-231/02: Piero Gonnelli and Associazione Italiana
Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Acts
affecting them individually — Regulation — Marketing
norms for olive oil — Inadmissibility)

Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/36.490 – graphite elec-
trodes) and imposes default interest in excess of 6.04 % – the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President;
W.H. Meij and J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 29 April 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by

the Commission.

(1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2002.

(2004/C 118/88)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-231/02: Piero Gonnelli and Associazione Italiana
(AIFO), established in Rome (Italy), repre-
Frantoiani Oleari
sented by U. Scuro,
lawyer, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and C. Loggi) –
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive
oil (OJ 2002 L 155, p. 27) – the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F.
Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 April
2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 23 January 2004

in Case T-248/03 Société de Produits Nestlé SA v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;

(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-
ment — No need to adjudicate)

2. the applicants are to bear their own costs and pay those incurred

by the defendant.

(1) OJ C 331, 24.11.01

(2004/C 118/90)

(Language of the case: English)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 29 April 2004

in Case T-308/02: SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Agreements — Fines — Rejection of request for facilities for
payment — Annulment of measures — Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 118/89)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-308/02: SGL Carbon AG established in Wiesbaden
(Germany), represented by M. Klusmann, lawyer v Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: G. Wilms and W Mölls)
– application for annulment of Commission decision of 24 July
2002 in so far as it rejects the applicant's request for facilities
for the payment of the fine imposed in a proceeding under

In Case T-248/03: Société de Produits Nestlé SA, established in
Vevey (Switzerland), represented by J.-J. Evrard, lawyer, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and I. de Medrano
Caballero), the other party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Grupo Kalise Menor-
quina SA, established in Palau de Plegamans (Spain) – applica-
tion for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2003 (Case R
732/2001-2) relating to opposition proceedings – the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, Presi-
dent, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
made an order on 23 January 2004, the operative part of
which is as follows:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by

OHIM.

(1) OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003