Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 233/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.9.2002

Grounds of claim: — The trademark applied for
satisfies the minimum
requirements for a distinctive character (Article 7(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94 ( [1] )).

— The contested decision is
contrary to jurisprudence of
the Court.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-219/02)**

(2002/C 233/53)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communitieson 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera,
residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón Garcia-Gallardo,
Gil Fournier and D. Javier Guillén Carra, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Commission’s decision refusing the applicant’s
application to take part in competition COM/A/6/01;

—
overturn the dismissal of the administrative appeal against
the refusal of the applicant’s application to take part in
the said competition;

—
order such other relief as the Court may think appropriate
so that the Commission fulfils its obligations under
Article 233 EC and, specifically, conducts a fresh examination of appeal No 486/01;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

In the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the
jury’s decision of 31 July 2001 in competition COM/A/6/01
in so far as the applicant was thereby refused admission to that
competition on the ground that she exceeded the age limit set
in the notice of competition.

In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:

— that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment
in that, in her appeal, the applicant was not seeking a
declaration that one of the conditions stipulated in the
notice of competition, namely the condition regarding
age, was illegal, but a declaration that the jury’s decision
refusing her admission to the competition was illegal;

—
infringement of the principle of equality, enshrined
in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits all
discrimination based on age;

—
infringement of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union and Article 14 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

**Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits**
**GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-222/02)**

(2002/C 233/54)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits GmbH, of Lustenau
(Austria), represented by M. Bergermann, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002 (Ref: R 1095-20001);

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

28.9.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 233/31

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The trade mark applied the word mark ‘ROBOTUNITS’ —
for: Application No 1 176 320

Goods or services con- goods in Classes 6, 7 and 9
cerned: (including metal profiles, guides
for machines and conveyor belts)

Decision contested refusal of registration by the
before the Board of examiner
Appeal:

Decision of the Board of dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ( [1] )

( [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 29 July 2002 by the Cámara de**
**Comercio e Industria de Zaragozaagainst the Commission**
**of the European Communities**

**(Case T-225/02)**

(2002/C 233/55)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 July 2002 by the Cámara de
Comercio e Industria, Zaragoza, Spain, represented by Alfredo
Sánchez-Rubio Garcia, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul Commission DecisionC(2000) 2621 of 29 December 2000 ‘relating to the withdrawal of aid which was
allocated to the European Social Fund (ESF) by the
Commission on 19.12.1991 No C(91) 2852 via the
Community initiative “EUROFORM” for Spain (P.O.
913051ES8) and which the Spanish authorities (UAFSE)
likewise allocated by way of ESF funds to the Cámara de
Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza,
for the “TRICOIN” project (ref.: EUR-82), for the
implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de
Zaragoza was responsible’;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The action has been brought against the decision by which the
Commission withdrew the aid, initially granted by the European Social Fund, for which the undertaking COPY ARAGON
S.A. had applied on 25 November 1991 for the purpose of
running specialised courses in colour image processing by
computer systems, financed by the Community initiative
EUROFORM (TRICOIN Project). The decision was essentially
based on the fact that the project concerned was not transnational.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

—
The Commission made errors of assessment concerning
the facts on which it based its decision, in so far as
regards both the description of the Chamber of Commerce, Zaragoza, as the ultimate recipient of the aid
granted and the allegation that the project did not have a
sufficiently transnational dimension. It points out in that
connection that the Community rules on the conditions
and requirements for an transnational dimension in the
framework of the programme for 1988 to 1993 were
neither sufficiently specific nor sufficiently clear and that
consequently it was impossible to ascertain precisely
which operations were transnational and which were not.

—
If the international operations required by the Commission were not provided for either in the original
application or in any subsequent alterations to the project
and the project was approved in that form, there is
no reason to impose such a requirement retroactively,
inasmuch as to do so would amount to a breach of the
principle of legal certainty.

—
The period which elapsed between presentation on
28 July 1999 of the UAFSE document containing the
submissions made in response to the defendant’s notification of 11 June 1999 of its proposal to instigate the
procedure for withdrawing the aid granted and the
contested decision of 29 December 2000, and the
period which elapsed between the date on which the
Commission adopted the Decision and the date of its
notification to the Chamber of Commerce, Zaragoza, on
16 May 2002 exceed what should and can be regarded as
reasonable in accordance with the principle of sound
administration.

—
Failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons.

—
The contested decision does not bear any signature
establishing the document’s authenticity.