Case T-198/05: Action brought on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), dangerous substance, import, import licence, import restriction, indemnification, ozone, pesticide

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of

10 February 2005;

2. order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

1. annul the implied decision of 5 September 2004, by which
the Commission refused to grant the applicant the daily
subsistence allowances following her entry into service;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

CORUS UK Limited

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
sought:

Word mark GALVALLOY —
application No
for
goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and
strip etc)

796 557,

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Applicant

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

National word mark GALVALLIA
for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet
and strip etc)

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Registration refused

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Decision of the Opposition Divi-
sion annulled

Pleas in law:

application of Article
Incorrect
8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark, OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.

The applicant in these proceedings objects to the Appointing
Authority's refusal to grant her the daily subsistence allowances
provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-
tions. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the appli-
cation that the reason for that refusal is the fact that the period
of 120 days referred to in paragraph 2(a) of that provision was
exceeded in the present case.

In support of her claims, the applicant argues:

— breach of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
in the versions of that text before and after 1 May 2004, to
the extent
to
requirements which are not provided for by that provision,

the administration made her subject

that

— breach of the principles of sound administration, prohibi-
tion on arbitrary conduct and abuse of power, by requiring
the applicant to produce evidence that she was renting a
house,

— breach of the obligation to state reasons for a measure,

— breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discri-

mination,

— breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of offi-

cials.

Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-191/05)

(2005/C 182/77)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-198/05)

(2005/C 182/78)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire,
residing in Evere (Belguim), represented by Gilles Bounéou and
Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV,
established in Rieme-Ertvelde (Belgium),
represented by C.
Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.

C 182/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the
amount requested through the present application for the
damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the defen-
dant's failure to establish a system allowing the applicant to
import Methyl Bromide in January and February 2005, or
any other amount as further established by the applicant in
the course of these proceedings or by the Court ex aequo et
bono;

— in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the
European Commission is obliged to make reparation for the
loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court
within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment
the compensation agreed
figures as to the amount of
between the parties or, failing agreement, order the parties
to produce to the Court within the same period their
submissions with detailed figures in support;

— order the European Commission to pay to the applicant a

compensatory interest of 8 % per annum;

— order the Commission to pay an interest of 8 %, or any
other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calcu-
lated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court's
judgment until actual payment; and

— order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in

these proceedings.

for the import of Methyl Bromide in the EU for each 12-month
period after 31 December 1999. The applicant submits further-
more a violation of the principles of sound administration and
the duty of care, requiring the Commission to act diligently,
impartially and in a timely fashion, as well as a violation of the
principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

The applicant states that the damage suffered by it as a result
of the defendant's unlawful conduct consists of the lost profit
that the applicant would have made by importing and subse-
quently selling Methyl Bromide during these two months.

(1) OJ L 244, p. 1

Action brought on 19 May 2005 by Nalocebar — Consul-
tores e Serviços Lda. against the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-210/05)

(2005/C 182/79)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

The applicant imports Methyl Bromide (MBr) in the EU. Methyl
Bromide is a controlled substance within the meaning of Regu-
lation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and
Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone
layer (1). The applicant states that it can therefore only import
Methyl Bromide subject
to the presentation of an import
licence and the nominal allocation of a 12-month import quota
established by the defendant each year.

With the present action, the applicant claims compensation for
damages allegedly suffered as a direct consequence of the defen-
dant's unlawful failure to establish a system in accordance with
Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2037/2000 allowing the
applicant to obtain import licences and import quotas for the
import of Methyl Bromide in the European Union in January
and February 2005.

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 19
May 2005 by Nalocebar — Consultores e Serviços Lda., estab-
lished in Funchal (Madeira), represented by G. Pasquarella and
R. M. Pasquarella, lawyers.

Limiñana y Botella, S. L. established in Monforte del Cid,
Alicante (Spain) was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— quash the Decision of 18 March 2005 of the First Board of
Appeal of
the OHIM in case no. R 646/2004-1 by
upholding the lawfulness of the figurative mark filed on 12
July 2000 by the applicants and published in the Com-
munity Trademark Bulletin no. 103/01 on 03.12.01;

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
defendant breached Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation 2037/2000,
which oblige the Commission to allocate licences and quotas

— award the statutory costs.