Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2004 in Case T- 342/99 DEP: Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs — Solicitors' and barristers' fees — Economists' fees — VAT)
Date: 2004-10-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: VAT, action for annulment (EU), consultancy, dominant position, economic concentration, merger control, remuneration of work, tax rebate, travel agency

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 20 July 2004

in Case T-311/02: Vitaly Lissotschenko and Joachim
Hentze v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Application to register the word
mark LIMO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article
7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2004/C 251/25)

sion by Airtours plc following the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99 Airtours v
Commission [2002] ECR II-2585 — the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh,
President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and
M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on 28 June 2004, the operative part of which is as
follows:

The total amount of the costs to be paid by the Commission to
Airtours is fixed at GBP 489 615.03 (four hundred and eighty-nine
thousand, six hundred and fifteen pounds and three pence).

(Language of the case: German)

(1) OJ C 79, 18.3.2000.

In Case T-311/02: Vitaly Lissotschenko, residing in Dortmund
(Germany), Joachim Hentze, residing in Werl (Germany), repre-
sented by B. Hein, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
J. Weberndörfer and G. Schneider) — action brought against
the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31
July 2002 (Case R 363/2000-2) concerning registration of the
word mark LIMO as a Community trade mark — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, Presi-
dent,
Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 20 July 2004, in which it:

and M.E. Martins Ribeiro,

P. Mengozzi

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2004

in Case T- 342/99 DEP: Airtours plc v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Taxation of costs — Solicitors' and barristers' fees —
Economists' fees — VAT)

(2004/C 251/26)

(Language of the case: English)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-341/02: Regione Siciliana v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(ERDF — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Termination of
financial assistance — Action for annulment — Direct
concern — Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 251/27)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-341/02: Regione Siciliana, represented by I. Bragu-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg v
glia,
Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: E. de
March and L. Flynn, with an address for service in Luxembourg)
— action for annulment of Commission Decision D (2002)
810439 of 5 September 2002 terminating the financial contri-
butions from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
in respect of the major project ‘Messina-Palermo motorway’
(ERDF No 93.05.03.001 – ARINCO No 93.IT.16.009) — the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi,
President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Register,
made an order on 8 July 2004, the operative part of which is
as follows:

(1) The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

(2) The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred

by the defendant.

In Case T-342/99 DEP: Airtours plc,
represented by M.
Nicholson, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of
the European Communities (Agent:
R. Lyal, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — applica-
tion for taxation of the costs to be recovered from the Commis-

(1) OJ No C 7 of 11.1.2003.