Case T-45/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission (Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties — Countervailing duties — Expiry of duties — Notice of initiation of a review — Time-limits — WTO Rules)
Date: 2008-09-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, World Trade Organisation, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, plastics, third country

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/35

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September
2008 — M v Ombudsman

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September
2008 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission

(Case T-412/05) (1)

(Case T-45/06) (1)

(Non-contractual liability — Decision by the Commission to
take no action on a complaint calling into question the
conduct of a Member State — Decision by the European
Ombudsman concerning the handling of the complaint —
Errors made by the Commission in its finding of instances of
maladministration — Naming of the applicant — Infringe-
ment of the right to respect for private life, and of the princi-
ples of proportionality and the right to be heard — Non-mate-
rial damage — Causal link)

(2008/C 285/62)

Language of the case: French

(Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties —
Countervailing duties — Expiry of duties — Notice of initia-
tion of a review — Time-limits — WTO Rules)

(2008/C 285/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

(represented initially by G.
Applicant: M (Brussels, Belgium)
Vandersanden and A. Kalogeropoulos, then by A. Kalogero-
poulos and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: J. Sant'Anna
and G. Grill, Agents)

Applicant: Reliance Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented
by: I. MacVay and S. Ahmed, Solicitors, R. Thompson, QC, and
K. Beal, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P.
lawyer) and
Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch,
Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N.
Khan and P. Stancanelli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for
compensation for damage suffered by the applicant as a result
of being named in the decision of the European Ombudsman of
18 July 2002 concerning the complaint registered with the
reference 1288/99/OV and as a result of the negligent conduct
of
that
the Ombudsman concerning the investigation of
complaint and the conclusions he reached in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Mr M compensation of

EUR 10 000;

Re:

Application for annulment of:

— Commission Notice of 1 December 2005 of initiation of an
expiry review of the countervailing measures applicable to
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in
inter alia India (OJ 2005 C 304, p. 4),

— Commission Notice of 1 December 2005 of initiation of an
expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in
India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan
and Thailand and a partial
the anti-
dumping measures applicable to imports of certain poly-
ethylene terephthalate originating in the Republic of Korea
and Taiwan (OJ 2005 C 304, p. 9),

interim review of

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

countervailing duty

— Council Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 of 27 November
and
2000 imposing a definitive
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in
India, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating the anti-
subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethy-
lene terephthalate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of
Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 1), Council Regulation
(EC) No 2604/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a defi-
definitively
nitive

anti-dumping

collecting

duty

and

C 285/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain poly-
terephthalate originating in India,
ethylene
Indonesia,
Malaysia,
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand
(OJ 2000 L 301, p. 21), and Commission Decision
2000/745/EC of 29 November 2000 accepting undertakings
offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-
subsidy proceedings concerning imports of certain polyethy-
lene terephthalate (PET) originating in India,
Indonesia,
the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand
Malaysia,
(OJ 2000 L 301, p. 88), in so far as those measures may
purport
in the period after
1 December 2005,

to apply to the applicant

from countries not members of

— in the alternative, Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against
dumped imports
the
European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) and Article 18(1)
of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997
on protection against subsidised imports from countries not
members of the European Community (OJ 1997 L 288,
p. 1).

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
Instance: Venticinque Ltd
intervening before the Court of First
(Hailsham, East Sussex, United Kingdom)
(represented by: D.
Caneva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Joined Cases R 682/2004-1 and
R 685/2004-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between
Venticinque Ltd and Oakley, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

Operative part of the judgment

intervener;

2. Orders Oakley, Inc., to pay the costs, except those incurred by the

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

3. Orders Venticinque Ltd to pay its own costs.

2. Orders Reliance Industries Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September
2008 — Oakley v OHIM — Venticinque (O STORE)

(Case T-218/06) (1)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008
— Neurim Pharmaceuticals
(1991) Ltd v OHIM —
Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel (Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS)

(Case T-116/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Com-
munity word mark O STORE — Earlier national word mark
THE O STORE — Comparison of services provided in
connection with retail trade with corresponding goods —
Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 — Application for alteration made by the
intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance)

(2008/C 285/64)

Language of the case: English

a

for

Community

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation
figurative mark Neurim
PHARMACEUTICALS — Earlier Community and national
word marks EURIM-PHARM — Language of appeal proceed-
ings — Time-limits — Admissibility of an appeal to the
Board of Appeal — Principle of proportionality — Continua-
tion of proceedings — Restitutio in integrum — Articles 59,
78 and 78a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rule 48(1)(c)
and (2), Rule 49(1) and Rule 96(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 2868/95)

(2008/C 285/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (One Icon, Foothill Ranch, United States)
(represented by: M. Huth-Dierig and M. Nentwig, lawyers)

Applicant: Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel)
(represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks
Folliard-
Monguiral, acting as Agent)

(represented by: A.

and Designs)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks
(represented by: G.
Schneider, Agent)

and Designs)

(OHIM)