Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

23.8.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/29

As a result of these breaches, the applicant claims to have
suffered loss. This loss consists firstly of the profits generated
by First Choice as reported in its audited accounts and that
would have accrued to the applicant if the acquisition had not
been prohibited by the Commission. Secondly, the applicant
claims the loss of synergy costs savings that would have been
obtained in consequence of the merger and, thirdly, the costs of
the abortive bid for First Choice which were wasted as a result
of the Decision of the Commission.

( [1] ) 2000/276/EC: Commission Decision of 22 September 1999
declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
Choice) (notified under document number C(1999) 3022) (Text
with EEA relevance) (OJ L 93 of 2000, p. 1).
( [2] ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (text republished in OJ L 257 of 1990, p. 13).
( [3] ) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002, Airtours/
Commission, T-342/99, ECR II-2585.

**Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Francesco Contesso**
**against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-213/03)**

(2003/C 200/52)

_(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 13 June 2003 by Francesco
Contesso, residing in Paris, represented by Sebastien Orlandi,
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision drawing up the definitive staff report
for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;

—
order the Commission to pay the applicant a token one
euro for compensation for the non-material damage
sustained;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the assessor's prior duty to consult senior assessors before
finalising the staff report, infringement of the assessor's duty to
require them to initial each of the pages and to sign the
definitive staff report, infringement of the duty to give reasons,
in so far as the appeal assessor did not state why he did not
take account of the opinions of the hierarchical superiors
consulted.

**Action brought on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A. against**
**the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market**
**(OHIM)**

**(Case T-215/03)**

(2003/C 200/53)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA,
S.A., with offices in Madrid, represented by E. Armijo Chávarri.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM
no. R 1127/2000-3 of 1 April 2003 on the ground that
it is inconsistent with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/
94;

—
in the alternative, annul the contested decision on the
ground that it prejudices SIGLA's rights of defence and
the principle underlying Article 74 of Regulation No 40/
94; and

—
order OHIM to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Community ELLENI HOLDING BV
trade mark:

Community trade mark Word mark ‘VIPS’ Application
sought: No 459.875 sought for products and services within
classes 9, 35 and 42 and, subsequently, only for services
within class 42 (computer programming services for hotels,
restaurants and cafes)

Mark or sign cited in op- Spanish word mark ‘VIPS’ (reposition: gistration No 551.436) for products of class 42 (supplying
prepared food and drink for
consumption, restaurants, service stations, canteens, bars and
cafeterias and hotel services)

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant

C 200/30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.8.2003

Decision of the Opposition Acceptance of the opposition
Division: for services falling within
class 42, rejection of the opposition for products falling within classes 9 and 35

Decision of the Board of Action upheld, contested deciAppeal: sion annulled

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of
(EC) Regulation No 40/94 and,
in the alternative, infringement
of Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation

**Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo Tenreiro**
**against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-216/03)**

(2003/C 200/54)

_(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 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo
Tenreiro, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision not to promote the applicant in the
2002 promotion procedure, as it appears from the
absence of the applicant's name in the list of officials
promoted to grade A4 published in the Administrative
Notice of 14 August 2002 (No 69-2002);

—
declare that the applicant is entitled to the actual promotion which should have been granted him in the 2002
promotion procedure, with retrospective effect and full
restoration of his financial and career rights;

—
order the Commission to pay all the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

In support of his action the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and breach of the

principle of non-discrimination. The applicant points out that
the defendant did not conduct an examination of the comparative merits of the applicant with those of the officials of all the
Directorates-General eligible for promotion, but limited itself to
the ‘quota’ which had been allocated to the applicant's Directorate-General, gave an advantage to officials considered as
reserve candidates from the previous year's promotion procedure and did not take account of applicant's transfer, during
the reference period, from one Directorate-General to another.

**Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale**
**de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the**
**Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-217/03)**

(2003/C 200/55)

_(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 19 June 2003 by the Fédération
Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande, (National Cooperative Association for Livestock and Meat) established in Paris,
represented by Robert Collin and Michel Ponsard, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul Decision C.38.179/F3 of 2 April 2003 in so far as
it affects the applicant;

—
alternatively quash the fine imposed by that decision;

—
in the further alternative reduce it;

—
order the defendant to pay all the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By its contested decision, the Commission imposed on the
applicant and five other French associations of producers and
slaughterers a fine based on alleged infringements of
Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in respect of an agreement to
suspend beef imports to France and to fix a minimum price
for certain categories of animals.