Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 September 2005  — ASAJA and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 — Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal persons — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, aid system, appeal to the Court (EU), marketing year, olive oil, production aid, support policy

C 296/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2005
— Aseprofar and Edifa v Commission

(Case T-247/04) (1)

(Action for annulment — Admissibility — Challengeable act
— Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations
— Notification 2002/C 244/03)

(2005/C 296/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos
farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) and Española de desarrollo e impulso
farmacéutico, SA (Edifa)
(represented by: L.
Ortiz Blanco, lawyer).

(Madrid, Spain)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Valero Jordana, Agent).

Application for

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2004 to
take no further action in respect of complaint P/2002/4609
and of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2004 to take no
further action in respect of complaint P/2003/5119, as regards
Article 29 EC.

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos
and Española de desarrollo e impulso farmacéutico, SA are
ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.08.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005
— Lorte and Others v Council

(Case T-287/04) (1)

(Action for annulment — Regulations (EC) No 864/2004
and No 865/2004 — Support scheme in the olive oil sector
— Natural and legal persons — Not of individual concern —
Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 296/52)

Language of the case: Spanish.

Parties

(Seville, Spain), Unión de organizaciones de productores de
aceite de oliva (Unaproliva) (Jaén, Spain), (represented by: R.
Illescas Ortiz, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by:
M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Application for

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29
April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 estab-
lishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession
of
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania,
Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European
Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48), and of Council Regulation (EC)
No 865/2004 of 29 April 2004 on the common organisation
of the market in olive oil and table olives and amending Regu-
lation (EEC) No 827/68 (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 97).

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants must bear their own costs and pay those incurred

by the Council.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission's application for

leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005
— ASAJA and Others v Council

(Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04) (1)

(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 —
Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal
persons — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 296/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén
(ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio
Ramiro López, Cristóbal Gallego Martínez, Benito García
Burgos and Antonio Rarras Rosa (Jaén, Spain) (represented by:
J. Vásquez Medina, lawyer)

Applicant(s): Lorte, SL (Seville, Spain), Oleo Unión, Federación
empresarial de organizaciones de productores de aceite de oliva

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by:
M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/25

Application for

question and (2) from proceeding with signature of the relevant
contract, on pain of a periodic penalty payment.

annulment of Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No
864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No
1782/2003 establishing common rules
support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing
certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason
of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia,
Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the
European Union.

for direct

Operative part of the Order

1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants will bear their own costs and those of the Council.

3. It is not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene

lodged by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20
September 2005 — Deloitte Business Advisory v Commis-
sion

(Case T-195/05 R)

(Interim measures — Community tendering procedure —
Loss of an opportunity — Urgency — Balance of interests)

(2005/C 296/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant(s): Deloitte Business Advisory (Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by: D. Van Heuven, S. Ronse and S. Logie,
lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Application for

(1)

interim measures seeking, first, an order suspending the opera-
tion of
the Commission decision rejecting the tender
submitted, inter alia, by the applicant under a call for tenders
bearing reference SANCO/2004/01/041 and (2) the decision to
award the contract in question to a third party and, secondly,
an order prohibiting the Commission (1) from informing the
successful tenderer of the decision awarding the contract in

Operative part of the Order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;

2. Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 12 July 2005 — Deutsche Telekom v
OHIM

(Case T-257/05)

(2005/C 296/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany)
sented by: J.-C. Gaedertz, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Forms of order sought

— The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 2 May
2005 in appeal proceedings R 0620/2004-2; re-establish
the applicant's rights (restitutio in integrum) in accordance
with Article 78 of the Community trade mark regulation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘t’ for goods and
services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 41 — Registration
No 2 893 865.

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the application to
re-establish the applicant's rights and dismissal of its appeal.

Pleas in law: The refusal to re-establish the applicant's rights in
the appeal proceedings is unlawful since it is incorrect that the
office organisation of the applicant's lawyers does not satisfy
the requirements of Article 78(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade
mark.