Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

23.11.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 289/25

**Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi**
**against the Council of the European Union and the**
**Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-253/02)**

(2002/C 289/48)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the EuropeanCommunities
on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi Dublin (Ireland), represented by A. Lyon, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002
of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities
associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods
and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban
and extending the freeze of funds and other financial
resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan ( [1] ) and
so much of Article 4 as relates to Article 2;

—
order the Council to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant is named in Annex I to the contested Regulation
as a person to whom Article 2 applies. Under this provision,
the applicant’s bank accounts have been frozen.

The applicant submits that the provisions enabling the Security
Council of the United Nations to call upon its Members to
apply certain measures do not impose upon Members of the
United Nations a duty to apply those measures. Members are
free to choose how to respond to the Security Council’s call.

The applicant further alleges that the Council was not competent to make Article 2 of the Regulation in that Articles 60
and 301 EC did not confer on the Council the power to do so.
The Council and the Commission misused their powers in that
Article 2 of the Regulation does not in fact pursue the
objectives of Articles 60 and 301 EC.

Furthermore, Article 2 of the Regulation infringes fundamental
principles of Community law, in particular the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality and the respect for human
rights.

Member States are best placed to establish what measures are
proportionate, and the total denial of all income and of all unearned assistance to an individual is disproportionate. Article 2
infringes human rights as it deprives an individual of access to
his property and to the means of existence without providing
any judicial remedy for that denial.

Finally, the applicant submits that an essential procedural
requirement has been infringed in the making of Article 2,
namely the requirement that the Council and the Commission
state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary
cannot be determined by individual Member States.

( [1] ) OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9.

**Action brought on 4 September 2002 by REWE-ZEN-**
**TRAL AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-267/02)**

(2002/C 289/49)

_(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: 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
4 September 2002 by REWE-ZENTRAL AG, Köln (Germany),
represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder,
Chr. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg. Fritidsresor AB,
Stockholm (Sweden) was an additional party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul decision R 0888/2001 of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 1 July 2002;

—
order the Office to pay the costs.

C 289/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23.11.2002

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark The word/figurative mark ‘atlasreapplied for: isen’ for goods in Classes 16,
36, 39, 41 and 42 (application
No 376210)

Proprietor of the oppos- Fritidsresor AB
ing trade mark or sign:

Opposing trade mark or The national Swedish word/figusign: rative mark ‘Atlas resor’ for services in Class 39 (travel arrangements and travel agencies)

Decision of Opposition Dismissal of application for ComDivision: munity trade markfor the services
‘arranging transport services by
water, land and air; arranging and
conducting travel by water, land
and air; arranging and providing
travel for tourists; providing tickets; providing food and drink and
temporary accommodation in
hotels and restaurants’ and admission of the registration for the
remaining goods and services

Decision of Board of Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: — Insufficient proof of genuine
use of the trade mark by the
opponent;

— Failure to comply with
Article 8(1) of Regulation
No 40/94 ( [1] ). The applicant
claims there is no likelihood
of confusion between the
trade marks.

( [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 5 September 2002 by National**
**Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employ-**
**ment Actions Limited (NRITEA) against the Commission**
**of the European Communities**

**(Case T-268/02)**

(2002/C 289/50)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 September 2002 by National
Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employment
Actions Limited (NRITEA), Newcastle Upon Tyne (United
Kingdom), represented by Ms Alison Tate, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Commission dated 23 May
2002 and the plaintiff be given a detailed analysis of each
and every dossier on which there is alleged to be a
problem and be allowed sufficient time to respond;

—
in the alternative, annul the Decision of 23 May 2002
and a declaration be made that Article 23 of Regulation
(EEC) 4253/88 should apply in this instance rather than
Article 24.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant is a voluntary organisation and a company
limited by guarantee that assists and monitors the provision of
training and development of underprivileged and deprived
individuals in the United Kingdom. In this respect, the
applicant worked together with The MARI Group Limited, a
commercial company, specialised in training.

Both companies were subject to several detailed audits.
Following these audits and as a result of various irregularities
found inthe execution of the projects, the Commission decided
to reduce the total assistance from the European Social Fund.
This Decision is contested by the applicant in the present case.

The applicant claims that the Commission has infringed an
essential procedural requirement in that it failed to provide the
applicant with the opportunity to defend itself. According to
the applicant, the Commission never provided directly to the
applicant sufficient details of the allegations raised.