Case T-369/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission (Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Action for damages — Limitation — Plea of illegality — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), approximation of laws, dangerous substance, labelling, packaging

C 74/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 January
2006 — Weißenfels v Parliament

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
initially D.
Schennen, subsequently D. Schennen and G. Schneider, Agents)

(represented by:

(Case T-33/04) (1)

(Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance —
Double allowance for a handicapped child — Article 67(2) of
the Staff Regulations — Deduction of an allowance of like
nature)

(2006/C 74/35)

Language of the case: German

Action

brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 4 August 2004 (Case R 771/1999-2), in relation to
the registration of a figurative mark consisting of the represen-
tation of a rectangular tablet

Parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Applicant: Roderich Weißenfels (Luxembourg) (represented by:
H. Arend, lawyer)

The Court:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Knudsen, U.
Rösslein and E. Ecker, agents)

1. Dismisses the application.

Application for

Annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 June 2003
deducting from the double dependent child allowance granted
to the applicant under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations an
allowance of like nature received from another source.

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

Operative part of the Judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January
2006 — Henkel v OHIM

(Case T-398/04) (1)

(Community trade mark — Figurative mark — Red and
white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre — Absolute
ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 — Absence of distinctive character)

(2006/C 74/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties:

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005
— Arizona Chemical BV and Others v Commission

(Case T-369/03) (1)

(Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a
dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not
open to challenge — Action for damages — Limitation —
Plea of illegality — Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 74/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties:

Applicants: Arizona Chemical BV (Huizen, Netherlands),
Eastman Belgium BVBA (Kallo, Belgium), Resinall Europe
BVBA (Bruges, Belgium), and Cray Valley Iberica, SA (Madrid)
(represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Applicant: Henkel KGaA (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by:
C. Osterrieth, lawyer)

Interverners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (repre-
sented by T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/19

Application for

first, annulment of an act of the Commission rejecting the
applicants' request for the withdrawal of rosin from the list of
sensitising substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive
67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classifi-
cation, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ,
English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), and,
for
compensation for the damages suffered

second,

the Cohesion Fund for the project entitled 'Construction of
Phase 1 of the second landfill site for waste in West Attica at
‘Skalistiri’ in the municipality of Fyli'.

Operative part of the Order

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants shall bear the costs of the proceedings, including

those relating to the interim proceedings.

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

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

by the defendant.

3. The intervener shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2006 —
Dimos Ano Liosion and Others v Commission

(Case T-85/05) (1)

(Inadmissibility — Persons not the addressees of Community
measures — Direct concern)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2006 —
Finland v Commission

(Case T-177/05) (1)

(Procedural issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Acts
not producing binding legal effects — European Commu-
nities' own resources — Infringement proceedings — Interest
for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation
(EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Negotiation of an agree-
ment on conditional payment)

(2006/C 74/39)

Language of the case: Finnish

(2006/C 74/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Parties:

Applicants: Dimos Ano Liosion (Greece), Theodora Goula,
Argyris Argyropoulos,
Ioannis Manis, Eleni Ntalipi, Vasilis
Papagrigoriou and Giorgos Fragkalexis (Ano Liossia, Greece)
(represented by: G. Kalavros, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafyllou and L. Flynn, Agents)

Application for

Annulment of Commission Decision E (2004) 5522 of 21
December 2004 concerning the grant of financial assistance by

Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and
A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)

Application for

Annulment of the Commission decision (Budget Directorate-
General) contained in the letter of 28 February 2005 and in the
confirmatory letter of 25 April 2005 whereby the Commission
refused to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland
on the conditional payment of retroactive duties, plus default
interest up to the date of payment, which the Commission
claimed from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringe-
ment proceedings 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC.