Case T-237/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), communications industry, economic concentration, people's bank, publishing

C 205/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision to appoint the applicant an official of the
European Communities, insofar as it determines his grade of
recruitment in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to
the Staff Regulations;

The applicant then refers to alleged inconsistency between, on
the one hand, the remarks made in the contested report which
demonstrate improvement in that he exceeded his objectives
and, on the other, the marks awarded him which were below
average.

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

the applicant alleges lack of a relevant statement of

Last,
reasons for the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are identical to those raised in
Case T-130/05 Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.

Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile Jacob
SAS against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Willem Aldershoff
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-236/05)

(2005/C 205/58)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 June 2005 by Willem
represented by Sébastien
Aldershoff,
Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and
Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

residing in Brussels,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision approving his career development report
for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003,

(Case T-237/05)

(2005/C 205/59)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile
Jacob SAS, established in Paris, represented by W. van Weert
and O. Fréget, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul

the contested decision,

in which the Commission
refused to send to the applicant documents which it had
requested, since:

— the Commission did not specifically and individually
examine each of the documents to which the applicant
was seeking access;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— the Commission wrongly applied the exceptions under

Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— the Commission infringed in any event the applicant's

right to partial access to the documents requested;

In support of his action, the applicant alleges manifest error of
assessment on account of the fact that he was not given the
assessment ‘Exceptional’ or ‘Very good’ for his performance,
although he had attained, and even exceeded, his objectives
despite particular problems encountered in this work-place.

— the Commission infringed the principle of proportion-
the exceptions
ality by not balancing application of
under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 with
the higher interest justifying the disclosure of the docu-
ments.

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/33

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant has brought two actions for annulment before
the Court of First Instance, the first (Case T-279/04) (1) being
against the Commission's decision of 7 January 2004 declaring
the concentration operation whereby Lagardere was to acquire
exclusive control of the assets of Vivendi Universal Publishing,
subject to honouring the latter's undertakings, compatible with
the common market
(COMP.M/2978 — Lagardere/Natexis/
VUP), and the second (Case T-452/04) (2) being against the
Commission's decision of 30 July 2004, concerning the
approval of Wendel Investment as the acquirer of the assets
surrendered in accordance with the decision of 7 January 2004.

On 27 January 2005, the applicant asked the Commission, on
the strength of Article 255 EC and Regulation No 1049/2001,
for access to certain documents concerning that case. The
Commission sent only one of the documents requested, main-
taining that the others were covered by exceptions to the prin-
ciple of public access to documents. On 18 February 2005, the
applicant made a confirmatory application, which was likewise
rejected by the Commission on 7 April 2005.

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker
Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-239/05)

(2005/C 205/60)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

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 1 July
2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in
Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag, established in Stockholm (Sweden),
was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

In support of its action against that latter decision, the appli-
cant argues that it is void because it was based on an examina-
tion by categories of document requested and not on a specific
and individual examination of each document.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

It also argues that the Commission made clear errors of assess-
ment in applying each of the exceptions under Article 4(2) of
Regulation No 1049/2001, which it relied upon in dismissing
the request. More particularly, the exceptions concern protec-
tion of the purpose of investigation activities, the protection of
commercial
the protection of the decision-making
process, and the protection of the Commission's legal opinions.
In the applicant's submission, the Commission has not applied
any of those exceptions correctly.

interests,

— annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of

the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 727/2004-1);

— declare opposition proceedings B497 596 inadmissible;

— order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the
course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne
by the OHIM.

The applicant also claims that the Commission has infringed its
right to at least partial access to the documents concerned.

Finally, the applicant claims that the proportionality principle
has been infringed because the Commission did not balance the
exceptions
referred to in Article 4(2) of Regulation No
1049/2001 against the higher public interest justifying disclo-
sure of the documents requested.

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 33
(2) OJ C 45 of 19.02.05, p. 24

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

Community trade mark
concerned:

Coloured three-dimensional mark
in black and yellow, in the form
for goods in Class 7
of a tool
(manually operated portable elec-
tric power tools etc.)