Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 317/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.11.2001

**ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE** The applicant claims that the Court should:

**of 6 July 2001** — Annul the contested act;

**in Case T-375/00 Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora** —
Declare her to be entitled to obtain a survivor’s pension;
**v Commission of the European Communities** ( [1] )

—
Set the amount of that pension at 200 000 BEF a month;
_**(Officials — Replacement staff — Members of the auxiliary**_
_**staff — Claim to classification as a member of the temporary**_
_**staff of the European Communities — Action in part lacking**_ —
Order the defendant to pay the costs.
_**in any legal basis and in part inadmissible)**_

(2001/C 317/51)

_Pleas in law and main arguments_
_(Language of the case: French)_

In Case T-375/00: Danielle Dubigh, a member of the auxiliary
The applicant, divorced from a former member of the Court
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
of Justice, now deceased, is challenging the defendant’s refusal
residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, also a member
to grant her a survivor’s pension. That decision is based on the
of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
alleged absence of any maintenance agreement concluded after
Communities, residing in Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented
the divorce was granted and on the fact that a survivor’s
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for
pension is conditional upon a right to maintenance.
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decisions
of 12 January 2000 rejecting the applicants’ requests of In support of her claims, the applicant maintains that the
24 September 1999 for regularisation of their administrative defendant, having regard to the circumstances of the case, was
situation by recognising them as members of the temporary not entitled to consider that the two sworn declarations she
staff of the European Communities — the Court of First produced in order to establish the existence and amount of the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi- maintenance agreement with her ex-husband were insufficient.
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has made an order on 6 July 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:

1. _The application is dismissed._

2. _Each party shall bear its own costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001. **Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-174/01)**

**Action brought on 26 July 2001 by M against the Court**
(2001/C 317/53)
**of Justice of the European Communities**

**(Case T-172/01)** _(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was_
_made: German)_
(2001/C 317/52)

_(Language of the case: French)_
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
An action against the Court of Justice of the European the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn of Makati, Metro
of the European Communities on 26 July 2001 by M, Manila (Philippines), represented by Dr Siegfried Jackermeier,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Harisios Tagaras, with an address for service in Luxembourg. Further party
lawyers. before the board of appeal: Redcats SA, Roubaix (France).

10.11.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 317/27

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should: **Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de**
**Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European**
— **Communities**
Annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 25 April 2001 (Case R641/2000-3);
**(Case T-175/01)**

—
Order the defendant to pay the costs.
(2001/C 317/54)

_(Language of the case: French)_
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

An action against the Commission of the European CommuniApplicant for the Com- the applicant ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
munity mark: European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Sacilor Lormines,
a mining company established at Puteaux (France), represented
by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
Trade mark applied for: ‘Silk Cocoon’ for goods in
Class 25 (clothing) — Application
No 551903
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Holder of the rights in Redcats SA, Roubaix (France) (for- annul the implied decision of 9 July 2001 by which the
the mark or sign relied merly La Redoute SA) Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
on in the opposition notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
proceedings:

—
annul the express decision of 10 July 2001 by which the
Opposed mark or sign: the French and international word Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
mark ‘Cocoon’ for goods in notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
Class 25

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

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

_Pleas in law and principal arguments_
Decision of the Board of annulment of the Decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division
The applicant company in this case, which is also the applicant
in Case T-107/01,( [1] ) claims to have been subjected to excessive
Pleas in law relied on: — infringement of Article 43(2) financial pressure by the French authorities in consequence of
of Council Regulation its commencement of the procedures for abandonment and
No 40/94 ( [1] ); surrender of its mining licences. Because of the French
— administration’s wish to block it, the said surrender has been
lack of evidence of genuine
impossible to effect.
use of the opposed marks;

—
infringement of Rule 22(2)
Faced with what it claims to be a refusal by the French
of Commission Regulation
administrative courts to protect the rights to which it is entitled
No 2868/95 ( [2] );
under the ECSC Treaty, the applicant lodged a complaint with

—
infringement of Rule 22(1) the Commission against the French State. Since that complaint
of Commission Regulation was rejected, it brought before the Court of First Instance an
No 2686/95. action for failure to act and annulment, which was registered
under No T-107/01, referred to above.

On this occasion the applicant has addressed a further letter of
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the formal notice to the Commission asking it to find that France
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1). has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(b) and 86
( [2] ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December ECSC. The Commission’s failure to respond has given rise to
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the an implied decision of rejection which is open to challenge.
Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1). Further, on 19 July 2001, the applicant received a letter
informing it that the Commission considered that Article 4(b)
ECSC was not applicable to the case. Those are the decisions
which are challenged.