Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

2.3.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 56/17

The applicant claims that the Court should: **Action brought on 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesell-**
**schaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssyte-**
— **me mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
grant him a Declaration that Commission Regulation
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
(EC) No. 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 and Council
Regulation (EC) No. 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 are,
insofar as they relate to the applicant, void, and an Order **(Case T-317/01)**
for annulment in this regard;

— (2002/C 56/31)
order that the Council and/or the Commission pay the
applicant’s costs of this action.
_(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has_
_been drafted: German)_

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Saudi Arabia
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
with substantial financial interests within the European Union,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
challenges Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesellschaft für Unter2001, amending, for the third time, Council Regulation (EC)
nehmensberatung und Informationssyteme mbH, of Frankfurt
No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and
am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer. A further
services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources
Mediametrie S.A., of Levallois Perret (France).
in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000( [1] ), in as much as it inserted the
applicant’s name into Annex I to Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001. By Article 2/1 of the latter, all funds belonging The applicant claims that the Court should:
to persons designated by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
the United Nations are to be frozen. —
annul the decision adopted on 2 October 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that the No R 698/2000-1;
measures in question:

—
order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.

—
Amount to an interference with property rights, protected
as a fundamental right within the Community legal order.

—
Entitle the Council and the Commission, in violation of _Pleas in law and main arguments_
the right to a fair hearing, to freeze his assets and to
maintain his freeze without granting him any opportunity
to make submissions to these authorities seeking to Applicant for the Com- the applicant
persuade them to release his assets. munity trade mark:

— The Community trade the verbal mark ‘M+M EURODAProvide, in violation of the Community Law principle of
mark applied for: TA’ for goods and services in
effective judicial control, no remedy to the Applicant by
Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 ( _inter_
which he may seek to challenge his inclusion in the list
_alia_ software, market research and
by obtaining an independent judicial assessment of the
evidential basis for the interference with his rights. seminars)

Proprietor of the trade- Mediametrie S.A.
mark right opposed in
According to the Applicant, an independent assessment by the
the opposition proceedCommunty institutions or by any judicial body of the evidential
ings:
basis for the freezing of its assets would show there is no basis
for the allegations against it.
Trade-mark right the Irish, French and international
opposed: (effective in respect of Benelux,
Spain, Italy and Portugal) verbal
( [1] ) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25. mark ‘EURODATA TV’

Decision of the Oppo- rejection of the opposition
sition Division:

C 56/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.3.2002

Decision of the Board of rescission of the decision of the — order the defendant to pay damages provisionally assesAppeal: Opposition Division and referral sed, on a fair and equitable basis, in the sum of
of the case back to the Opposition 10 000 euros and to pay interest at 7 % per annum on
Division as regards the goods and the balance of the pension due from 24 September 2000
services not covered by the to 1 April 2001;
decision of the Board of Appeal.

—
order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Grounds of claim: — infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 ( [1] );
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

—
no risk of confusion;

— The pleas in law and arguments advanced are broadly similar
no similarity between the
to those put forward in Case T-124/01 Del Vaglio v Comallegedly conflicting services.
mission (OJ 2001 C 227, p. 31).

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler**
**Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-321/01)**

(2002/C 56/33)
**Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**
_(Language of the case: French)_

**(Case T-320/01)**
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(2002/C 56/32) European Communities on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., established at Rosbach (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Hans Kaltenecker, lawyer.
_(Language of the case: French)_

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the European Commission of
16 October 2001 by which it refused the applicant’s
An action against the Commission of the European Communi1996 and 1997 requests for co-financing;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del —
order the Commission, pursuant to the principle of
Vaglio, residing in London, represented by Georges Vanderreimbursement, to pay the costs, including those resulting
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
from the procedures before the Ombudsman which the
applicant was constrained to incur in order to obtain its
entitlement.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the defendant’s decision of 6 September 2001 _Pleas in law and main arguments_
rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the application to his pension of the weighting for the United
The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision of
Kingdom;
16 October 2001 rejecting three requests for co-financing
which it had made under budget heading B7-6000, concerning

—
order the defendant to apply the weighting for the United the co-financing of actions with European non-governmental
Kingdom with retroactive effect from 24 September development organisations (NGDOs) in fields relating to
2000; developing countries.