Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-222/03 P Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — EAGGF — Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed — Plan to build a centre for the storage, packaging and marketing of olive oil — Principle of proportionality — Force majeure — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), balance of payments assistance, olive oil, producer organisation

C 93/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case C-222/03 P Associazione Produttori Olivicoli
Laziali (APOL) Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli
(AIPO) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

Appeal brought on 18 January 2005 by H. Meister against
the judgment delivered on 28 October 2004 by the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
Chamber) in Case T-76/03 between H. Meister and Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-12/05 P)

(2005/C 93/08)

(Language of the case: French)

(Appeal — EAGGF — Improvement of the conditions under
which agricultural products are processed and marketed —
Plan to build a centre for the storage, packaging and
marketing of olive oil — Principle of proportionality — Force
majeure — Rights of the defence)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 October 2004
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Third Chamber) in Case T-76/03 between H. Meister and Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities on 18 January 2005 by H. Meister, repre-
sented by P. Goergen, avocat.

(2005/C 93/07)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: Italian)

(APOL), Associazione

In Case C-222/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice, brought on 21 May 2003, Associazione
Produttori Olivicoli Laziali
Italiana
Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), (lawyers: E. Cappelli, P. De Caterini
and A. Bandini), the other party to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio
and C. Cattabriga, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer) – the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
made an order on 16 December 2004, the operative part of
which is as follows

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali and Associazione Italiana

Produttori Olivicoli shall pay the costs of this appeal.

(1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003

1. declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

2. accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 (Case T-76/
03), with the exception of paragraphs 202 to 208 of the
contested judgment, namely the provisions stating that the
President of OHIM committed a breach of his administrative
duty such as to give rise to a right to reparation;

3. give final judgment on the dispute, if it does not remit the
case to the Court of First Instance, and grant the forms of
order sought at first instance;

4. order OHIM to pay all the costs of the proceedings before

both courts.

Pleas on appeal and main arguments:

The Court of First Instance, first, gave its reasoning in an erro-
neous, inadequate and contradictory manner and, second, made
errors in law.

First of all, the defects in the Court's reasoning amount to a
clear distortion of the facts. The Court's selection of the matters
of fact was arbitrary and its assessment of them inaccurate.
Secondly, those defects are the result of an incorrect legal quali-
fication of the contested decision, in particular the refusal to
classify it as a disciplinary measure. The Court made a further
error in its reasoning in finding that the administration had a
broad discretion when evaluating the interest of the service,
which renders ineffective the duty to have regard to the welfare
of officials, and in stating that judicial review concerning obser-
vance of the condition relating to the interest of the service is
limited to the question as to whether or not the appointing