Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

24.1.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 21/39

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal as inadAppeal: missible as a result of a failure
to comply with the time-limit
prescribed for lodging appeals.

Pleas in law: — infringement of Article 6 of
the European Convention on
Human Rights in that notification by fax does not satisfy
the requirement for security
of notification in proceedings.

—
in the alternative, infringement of Rules 55, 61 and 65
of Commission Regulation
No 2868/95 and of
Article 59 of Regulation
No 40/94.

**Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hen-**
**drickx against Council of the European Union**

**(Case T-376/03)**

(2004/C 21/81)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hendrickx,
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decisions of the Selection Board for competition
CONSEIL/A/270 to award him an eliminatory mark for
written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests;

—
order the Council to pay the applicant symbolic damages
of one euro for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Competition notice CONSEIL/A/270 stated that candidates
were required to have a perfect command of one of the
official languages of the European Communities, a very good
knowledge of either English or French and an adequate
knowledge of the other of those two languages. However,
candidates choosing French or English as the language of
which they had a perfect command were required to show
evidence of a very good knowledge of the other of those two
languages and also an adequate knowledge of a third official
language. By his first plea, the applicant claims that this
provision discriminates between, on the one hand, anglophone
and francophone candidates and, on the other, other candidates. In that context, he relies on breach of the principle of
equal treatment and also of subparagraph f of the first
paragraph of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. By his second
plea, the applicant claims that, at the third written test,
candidates were asked to write a brief account of the role of
the Secretariat General of the Council, in breach of the
competition notice, which provided for an account of the
activities of the Council. The third plea refers to the Council’s
refusal to grant the applicant access to the corrected copy of
his third written test. The applicant pleads infringement of
Article 255(1) EC and also breach of the obligation to state
reasons and of the principles of good management and good
administration.

**Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Tech-**
**nologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market**

**(Case T-377/03)**

(2004/C 21/82)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 2003 by ATI
Technologies Inc., established in Thornhill (Canada), represented by Chantal Silvia Moreau, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

Asociación de Técnicos de Informatica — ATI was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

C 21/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.1.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision given by the Fourth Board of Appeal
of the defendant on 16 July 2003 in Case R 339/2002-4;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- ATI Technologies Inc.
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Word mark ‘ATI’ — Application
sought: No 362 863 lodged in respect of
goods and services in Class 9
(electronic components etc.).

Proprietor of mark or Asociación de Técnicos de
sign cited in the oppo- Informatica — ATI.
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in Graphic mark ‘ati’ registered in
opposition: respect of services in Class 42.

Decision of the Oppo- Refusal of the application for
sition Division: registration.

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).

**Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Musée Grevin**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-378/03)**

(2004/C 21/83)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 November 2003 by Musée
Grevin, having its registered office in Paris, represented by
Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
join this action to Case T-314/03 for the purposes of the
written procedure and the oral procedure;

—
annul the decision of the European Commission of
30 September 2003 requiring Musée Grevin to reimburse
the sums allegedly wrongly paid to it;

—
order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant received grants from the Commission within the
framework of a project to create a joint venture with a Polish
undertaking. By decision of 8 July 2003, the Commission
sought repayment of the sums paid to the applicant.

The applicant brought proceedings challenging that decision
(Case T-314/03, OJ 2003 C 275, p. 49). At the same time, the
applicant submitted documents to the Commission fully
substantiating the proper use of the Community funds, and
asked it to reconsider its decision. In the decision contested in
this case, the Commission confirmed its decision of 8 July
2003.

In support of its application, the applicant alleges, first, a
breach of Regulation No 1 ( [1] ), in that the contested decision
was written in English and not in French. It also alleges a
failure to respect the limitation period of four years laid down
in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 ( [2] ). The
applicant alleges moreover a breach of the principle of
collegiate responsibility and that the person who signed the
contested decision lacked competence.

The applicant also alleges that the decision lacks any legal
basis, contains a manifest error of assessment, fails to satisfy
the obligation to state reasons and, lastly, is in breach of the
principle of proportionality.

( [1] ) Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by
the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition
1952-1958, p. 59).
( [2] ) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
interests (OJ 1995 L 312, pp. 1-4).