Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

2.8.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/49

The application for increase in capacity of the applicant was
submitted by Ireland to the European Commission, who rejected
it in the contested decision.

In support of its present application, the applicant submits that
the Commission erred in law and in fact. According to the
applicant, the increase in capacity complies with the provisions
of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EEC and is therefore eligible for approval.

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission
violated the principle of legal certainty, the applicant's legitimate expectations and the principle of non-retroactivity.
According to the applicant, the Commission applied criteria
which were not in existence at the time the replacement vessel
was ordered or at the time the application for increase in
capacity was submitted to the Commission.

In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission had
regard to the nature of the applications for increase prior to
adopting the said criteria and applied criteria that discriminated
against the applicant. The applicant claims that the exception
for vessels lost at sea and allowing an increase in tonnage in
respect of these new vessels constitutes an unjustified discrimination.

The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the
principle of proportionality, failed to give adequate or sufficient
reasons and denied the applicant's right to be heard.

( [1] ) OJ L 175, p. 27.

**Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro against**
**the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-193/03)**

(2003/C 184/105)

_(Language of the Case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro,
resident in Wezembeek Oppem (Belgium), 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 establishing the definitive staff report
for 1997 to 1999;

—
order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 as token
damages for the harm suffered;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the
obligation to state reasons in that the appeal assessor, when
drawing up the applicant's report for 1999 to 2001, did not
indicate the reasons why he did not take account of the views
of the persons consulted or of the difficult working conditions.
Nor did he explain precisely why the general assessment made
by him was less favourable than that appearing in the staff
report drawn up before the appeal to the Joint Committee on
Staff Reports.

The applicant also pleads the non-material damage suffered by
reason of the belated drawing up of his staff report.

**Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria**
**S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-194/03)**

(2003/C 184/106)

_(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
30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A., represented by
P.L. Roncaglia, A.T. Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers.

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Marine Enterprise Projects Società Unipersonale di Alberto
Fiorenzi S.r.l.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2003 in Case R 1015/
2001-4

—
order the OHIM to dismiss the application for a Community trade mark No 940007 BAINBRIDGE (figurative);

—
order the OHIM to pay the costs.

C 184/50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 2.8.2003

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Community Marine Enterprise Projects Sotrade mark: cietà Unipersonale di Alberto
Fiorenzi S.r.l.

Community trade mark The figurative mark ‘BAINsought: BRIDGE’ — Application for registration No 940007 requested
for products in Classes 18
(Leather and imitations of
leather, animal skins, hides;
trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking
sticks; whips, harness and saddlery) and 25 (Clothing, footwear, headgear).

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition proceedings:

The Applicant

Mark or sign cited in op- Italian figurative marks
position: ‘BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 370836 and
704338) for products in
Class 25, the figurative mark
‘THE BRIDGE BASKET’ (Reg.
No 593651) for products in
Classes 18 and 25, trade name
‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 642952) for products in
Class 25, the three-dimensional
marks ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 704372 and No 633349)
for products in Classes 18 and
25, the trade name ‘FOOTBRIDGE’ (Reg. No 710102) for
products in Classes 18 and 25,
the figurative mark ‘THE
BRIDGE WAYFARER’ (Reg.
No 721569) for products in
Classes 18 and 25, the trade
name ‘OVER THE BRIDGE’
(Reg. No 630763) for products
in Classes 18 and 25, and the
trade name ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 642953) for products in
Class 18.

Decision of the Opposition Dismissal of the opposition.
Division:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(Risk of confusion).

**Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation**
**for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the European**
**Parliament and the Council of the European Union**

**(Case T-196/03)**

(2003/C 184/107)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 2003 by
European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EffCI), Brussels,
Belgium, represented by Mr K. Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Declare the application applicable and well founded, or, in
the alternative, join the questions on admissibility to the
examination of the substance

—
Order the partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive
2003/15/EC ( [1] ) of the European Parliament and the
Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive
76/768/EEC ( [2] ) on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to cosmetic products, so as to
remove the new Article 4a (2) and (2.1) ; Article 4b and
the new sub-paragraph added to Article 6(3) of the
Directive 76/768/EEC.

—
order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in the
proceedings

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant is a European Economic Interest Grouping
representing European manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients.
The provisions of Directive 2003/15/EC which it attacks
concern the prohibition of the performance of animal testing
on chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetic products as well
as the prohibition of all uses in cosmetic products of certain
chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
reproduction.

In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
the prohibition of animal testing, the applicant advances the
following grounds:

—
The alleged infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant claims that the contested measure is
based on an incorrect legal basis. According to the
applicant, although it is based on Article 95 of the EC
treaty it is not intended to eliminate obstacles to the free
movement of goods or remove distortions of competition.
Further, the applicant advances an alleged misuse of
powers, in that the contested measure is, according to
the applicant, intended to promote the welfare of animals
which is not part of the internal market objectives of the
EC. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested
measure does not contain adequate reasons and due
motivation.