do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-299/04: Action brought on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, competition law, services contract, telecommunications industry, transmission network

C 217/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.8.2004

Action brought on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-299/04)

(2004/C 217/34)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July 2004
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Theofanis Christoforou, Legal Adviser, and Karolina Mojze-
sowicz, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 2002/77/EC (1) of 16
September 2002 on competition in the markets for elec-
tronic communications networks and services, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive into national law
expired on 14 July 2003.

— declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to
the Commission within the time-limit laid down, the laws,

(1) OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Case T-275/01, Mercedes Alvarez Moreno v European Parliament (Officials — Auxiliary servant — Conference interpreter — Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — End of engagement)
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), age discrimination, information profession, older worker, servant (EU)

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Erich Drazdansky
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

of 10 June 2004

in Case T-275/01, Mercedes Alvarez Moreno v European
Parliament (1)

(Case T-158/04)

(2004/C 217/36)

(Officials — Auxiliary servant — Conference interpreter —
the Conditions of Employment of Other
Article 74 of

Servants — End of engagement)

(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)

(2004/C 217/35)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-275/01: Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin
(Germany), represented by G. Vandersanden,
lawyer, against
European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. de
Wachter), application, first, for annulment of the decision no
longer to engage conference interpreters who have reached the
age of 65 years and, second, for damages, the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
J. Palacio
for the Registrar, gave a
González, Principal Administrator,
judgment on 10 June 2004 in which it:

Judges;

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 26
April 2004 by Erich Drazdansky, resident in Wiener Neustadt
(Austria), represented by A. Leeb, lawyer.

The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of
Ireland, also
trading as Seven-Up International, Hamilton (Bermuda), was
also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant it restitutio in integrum;

1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 30 November 2000,
notified to the applicant on 10 February 2001, and the decision
of
the Parliament of 19 July 2001 rejecting the applicant's
complaint;

— alternatively annul the Office's decision and direct it to

reach a fresh decision on the application;

— order the defendant, in any event, to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant lodged an application with the defendant Office
for the word mark 'UUP'S' for goods in Class 32 (Application
No 1 968 676). Opposition to that mark was lodged by The
Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland, holder of the
Community trade mark and Spanish word mark ‘UP’ for goods
in Classes 30 and 32.