Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

24.11.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 331/11

**Appeal brought on 24 September 2001 by Christina Kik** No 40/94, an application submitted in Dutch is never
**against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the** dealt with in that language and all opposition, revocation
**Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of** or invalidity proceedings take place in one of the
**First Instance of the European Communities in Case** Office’s working languages, the appellant submits that by
**T-120/99betweenChristinaKik,supportedbytheHellenic** introducing those rules governing languages the Council
**Republic and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal** has failed to fulfil its obligation to treat all the citizens of
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs), supported by the** the Union quite equally. A distinct group of citizens of
**Kingdom of Spain and the Council of the European Union** the Union, namely, nationals of Member States the
languages of which are not working languages of the
**(Case C-361/01 P)** Office, are discriminated against in comparison with
nationals of the other Member States because they
cannot follow proceedings before the Office in their own
(2001/C 331/17)
language, which causes them to incur considerably higher
costs and entails a greater risk of inaccuracy.

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by In exercising their profession, trade mark agents of the
the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of Member States whose language is not one of the working
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-120/99 languages of the Office are placed in a situation substanbetween Christina Kik, supported by the Hellenic Republic, tially unfavourable to competition. It will always be
and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade cheaper, and therefore more attractive, for an applicant
Marks and Designs), supported by the Kingdom of Spain and for a Community trade mark to be assisted by a trade
the Council of the European Union was brought before the mark agent whose mother tongue belongs to the Office’s
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Septem- working languages. Consequently, the rules governing
ber 2001 by Ms Kik, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijck languages leads to significant distortion of competition
and S.B. Noë, lawyers, the other parties to the proceedings on the Community market.
being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
To the applicant’s mind, breach of the prohibition of
(Trade Marks and Designs, ‘OHIM’), represented by O. Montalto
discrimination cannot be justified by considerations of
and J. Miranda de Sousa, acting as Agents, and J. Bourgeois,
practical expediency, given the fundamental nature of the
Lawyer, the Hellenic Republic, represented by K. Samoniprinciple of equal treatment.
Randou and S. Vodina, acting as Agents, the Kingdom of
Spain, represented by S. Ortiz Vaamonde, acting as Agent, and
Even if practical and financial considerations could justify
the Council of the European Union, represented by G. Houttin
derogation from the principle of equal treatment, the fact
and A. Lo Monaco, acting as Agents.
would remain that the rules governing languages laid
down in Regulation (EC) No 40/94 are not proportional.
The appellant claims that the Court should: The Council could have designated one official language
for all proceedings before the Office, for example English.

—
set aside the contested judgment( [1] ) of the Court of First That would have had a considerably less discriminatory
Instance, effect and distorted the market considerably less than the
rules governing languages in question. In the appellant’s

—
annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office opinion, there is no reasonable justification for less
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 March favourable treatment of, for example, Dutch, which is
1999, spoken by more than 20 million citizens of the Union, in
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market relation to Spanish or Italian.
to pay the costs, including the costs incurred before the Finally, the fact that the Council adopted Regulation (EC)
Court of First Instance. No 40/94 unanimously cannot constitute a factor of
any consequence. The ‘rule of law’ implies that the
Community legislature is also subject to the law.
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ In the alternative: at the very least, the second sentence of
— subparagraph 4 is unlawful. This sentence is also contrary
Misinterpretation of Article 115 of Regulation (EC)
to the principle which forms the basis of subparagraph 1
No 40/94( [2] ), the Court of First Instance erred in its
and of the first sentence of subparagraph 4 namely, that
understanding that those rules mean that all applications
the language used for filing the application is to be the
are to be dealt with in one of the working languages of
language of the proceedings. The second sentence of
the Office.
subparagraph 4, as is clear from the settled practice of
— the Office, deprives that principle of all meaning. The
Breach of the law, in particular Article 6 EC: just as, in
various provisions of Article 115 are, consequently,
accordance with this provision of the Treaty, the Member
mutually inconsistent.
States are obliged, in the field of language, to treat their
own nationals and those of other Member States quite
equally in situations governed by Community law, so, ( [1] ) Not yet published.
according to the appellant, Article 6 a fortiori requires ( [2] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
the Community legislature to treat all citizens of the (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 11).
Union quite equally. Since, under the rules governing
languages introduced by Article 115 of Regulation (EC)