Case T-171/05 RII: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  17 February 2006  — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — New action — Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure — New facts)
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, promotion

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/13

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February
2006 — Karatzoglou v EAR

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Oliver and F. Amato, Agents)

(Case T-471/04) (1)

(Member of the temporary staff — Termination of contract
— Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the European Communities — Observance
of the provisions of the contract — Legitimate expectations)

(2006/C 96/24)

Language of the case: English

Intervener in support of the defendant: Mediaset SpA (Milan, Italy)
(represented by: M. Bay, lawyer)

Application for

Annulment of the Commission's letter of 4 June 2004 [D
(2004) 471] in so far as it rejects the applicant's complaint that
the Italian Republic had infringed the combined provisions of
Articles 86 EC and 82 EC.

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Karatzoglou (Ioannina, Greece), represented
by S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (repre-
sented by J.-N. Louis, S. Orlandi, X. Martin and C. Manolo-
poulos, lawyers)

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. In addition to bearing its own costs, the applicant is ordered to
pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener.

Application

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 26 February 2004
to terminate the applicant's contract of employment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Agency for Reconstruction
(EAR) of 26 February 2004 terminating the applicant's contract
of employment;

2. Orders the EAR to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17
February 2006 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case T-171/05 RII)

(Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — New action —
Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure — New facts)

(2006/C 96/26)

Language of the case: French

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2006
— Centro Europa 7 v Commission

(Case T-338/04) (1)

Parties:

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by:
F. Rollinger, lawyer)

(Article 86(3) EC — Rejection of complaint — Action for
annulment — Plea of inadmissibility)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
(represented by: T. Kennedy,
J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens,
Agents)

(2006/C 96/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Application for

Parties:

Applicant: Centro Europa 7 Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: V.
Ripa di Meana and R. Mastroianni, lawyers)

Suspension of operation of the Court of Auditors' decision of 2
December 2004 to promote an official other than the applicant
to the post of principal translator at grade LA5 in the Dutch
Section of the Translation Service of the General Secretariat of
the Court of Auditors

C 96/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation
No. 40/94, as there is no risk of confusion between the
opposing trade marks, (i) due to the lack of similarity of the
goods and trade marks, and (ii) because the distinctive character
of the opposing trademark is limited to the graphical design.

Action brought on 14 December 2005 — Daishowa Seiki
v OHIM

Action brought on 25 January 2006 — Trioplast Witten-
heim v Commission

(Case T-438/05)

(2006/C 96/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

(Case T-26/06)

(2006/C 96/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Daishowa Seiki Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented
by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim,
Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision R928/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal
for the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs), made on 7 September 2005;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of this action
and of the objection proceedings R928/2004-1.

Applicant: Trioplast Wittenheim AS (Wittenheim, France)
(represented by: Tommy Pettersson, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially, annul Article 1(g) of the decision regarding the
period during which the applicant is held responsible for
the violation;

— partially, annul Article 2(f) of the decision regarding the
fine imposed on the applicant; in the alternative reduce the
fine;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Daishowa Seiki Co.
Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘BIG PLUS’ for
goods in Class 7 (Metal machine tools, parts and tool holders)
Application no. 1 073 964

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceed-
ings: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark
‘Plus’ for goods, inter alia in Classes 6 and 8

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposi-
tion

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Setting aside of the decision of
the Opposition Division

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant appeals against the Commission's decision in
Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks (C(2005) 4634 final;
hereinafter
‘the contested decision’) by which a fine of
EUR 17.85 million is imposed on the applicant for partici-
pating in anticompetitive conduct in the market for industrial
sacks in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg and
the Netherlands contrary to Article 81 EC.

The applicant does not dispute its participation in anticompeti-
tive conduct up to 23 March 1999, but ceased its infringement
in March 1999 when the applicant's new owner, Trioplast
Industrier, became aware of
the anticompetitive conduct.
According to the applicant, the Commission has thus wrongly
assessed the duration of the company's infringement.