Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 171/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.7.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
order the Commission to make good the damage suffered
by it as a result of incomplete compliance with the
judgment of the Court of 28 February 2002;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant has brought this action seeking a declaration
that the Commission is liable for failing to comply entirely
with the judgment of the Court ( [1] ) reducing the amount of the
fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission in decision
94/601/CE (Plasterboard), relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833-Plasterboard)( [2] ).

In the applicant’s view, the Commission should still pay the
interests due on the difference between the sum paid and the
amount of the fine finally fixed by the Court of First Instance
together with the costs, agreed by common accord of the
parties at EUR 50 000. The defendant incurs non-contractual
liability for the damage arising therefrom.

( [1] ) Case T-308/94 Cascades SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
( [2] ) OJ 1991 L 243, p. 1.

**Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot against**
**the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-162/03)**

(2003/C 171/64)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot, residing in
Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Commission of 6 May 2002
definitively recruitingthe applicant in Grade A 7 at step 3;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant took up his duties as a probationary official on
1 August 2001 and was provisionally recruited at step 1 in
grade A 7. The applicant made a request for recruitment at a
higher grade. That request was refused.

In support of his application the applicant submits that there
was a breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations in so far
as the Commission did not take account of the specific
requirements of the service. The applicant also submits that
there was a manifest error of assessment.

**Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A.**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-169/03)**

(2003/C 171/65)

_(Language of the case: Italian)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
12 May2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A., represented by Alessandro
Ruo, lawyer.

Sissi Rossi s.r.l. was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between
the trade marks in question with regard to all the goods
referred to and annul the contested decision at issue; in
the alternative, declare that the trade marks are inconsistent with each other so far as concerns ‘ladies’ bags’ and
‘ladies’ shoes’ and declare that there is an affinity between
such goods;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

19.7.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/39

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Sissi Rossi S.r.l.
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark The trade mark ‘SISSI ROSSI’ sought: Application No 837.906 for
goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and
26

Proprietor of mark or The applicant
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in Italian trade mark No 553.016
opposition: and international trade mark
No 577.643 ‘MISS ROSSI’, for
goods in Class 25 (ladies’ shoes)

Decision of the Oppo- Opposition upheld and applisition Division: cation for registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal upheld and opposition
Appeal: decision dismissed

Pleas in law: Likelihood of confusion by association and similarity between the
trade mark applied for and the
trade mark cited in opposition
(Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
No 40/94)

**Action brought on 14 May 2003 by British American**
**Tobacco (Investments) Limited against the Commission**
**of the European Communities**

**(Case T-170/03)**

(2003/C 171/66)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 May 2003 by British American
Tobacco (Investments) Limited, London, United Kingdom,
represented by Mr S. Crosby, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the refusal of the Defendant comprising the failure
to give access to certain documentation requested in the
Applicant’s confirmatory application of 17January 2003.

—
order the Defendant to pay all the Applicant’s costs
pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
defendant to grant it access to certain documents relating to
the classification of expanded tobacco for Customs and Excise
duty purposes. Regarding this topic, it points out that it has a
vital interest in knowing why a given product — expanded
tobacco — is treated as smoking tobacco within the meaning
of Article 5(1) of Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November
1995, on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the
consumption of manufactured tobacco ( [1] ), and thus as an
excisable product. The applicant considers the product an
intermediary product, unsmokable without further processing,
and therefore not excisable. It is stressed that there has been
no published decision determining the issue and giving the
reasons for the classification chosen.

As regards two of the sets of requested documents (a complete
set of documents of the Customs Cooperation Council on the
Classification of expanded tobacco for customs classification
purposes and all the attendance lists of all meetings of the
Committee on Excise Duties, or any other relevant Committee,
at which the definition of ‘smoking tobacco’ was debated), the
applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 8(1)
and (2) of Regulation(EC) 1049/2001 ( [2] ), by not responding
within the regulatory time-limits thereof.

In relation to the full minutes of all meetings of Excise duties,
or any other relevant committee, at which the definition of
‘smoking tobacco’ was debated, including the full minutes of
discussions on other agenda points, the applicant claims that
the contested refusal:

—
Misapplied the principle of proportionality. In particular,
the Commission made no attemp to confer informally
with the applicant with a view to finding a fair solution,
pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001