Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 55/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 8.3.2003

**ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST**

**INSTANCE**

**of 3 December 2002**

**in Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und**
**Veredlung v Commission of the European Communities**

_**(Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Aid granted to**_
_**the new Länder — Rescue and restructuring aid — Duty to**_
_**recover — Urgency — Balance of interests)**_

(2003/C 55/73)

_(Language of the case: German)_

In Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und
Veredlung, a company established in Neugersdorf, Germany,
represented by Professor U. Ehricke, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, supported by Freistaat Sachsen,represented by
M. Schütte, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
V. Kreuschitz, V. di Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for a
stay of execution of the Commission’s Decision 2002/783/EC
of 12 March 2002 on State aid C 62/2001 (ex NN 8/2000)
implemented by Germany for Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and
Erba Lautex GmbH in bankruptcy (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 48) and,
in the alternative, an application for staged reimbursement of
the aid in question — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 3 December 2002, in which
he:

1. _Dismissed the application for interim measures;_

2. _Ordered that costs be reserved._

**ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST**
**INSTANCE**

**of 13 December 2002**

**in Case T-234/02 R: Christos Michael v Commission of**
**the European Communities**

_**(Interim measures — Officials — Appointment decisions —**_
_**Admissibility — Urgency — Lack of urgency)**_

(2003/C 55/74)

_(Language of the case: Greek)_

In Case T-234/02 R, Christos Michael, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus

sels, represented by C. Tagaras, avocat, against the Commission
of the European Communities (agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe
and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, seeking the suspension of operation of decisions appointing a Deputy Head of Unit of Unit
DG FC A.01 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
agences’ of that unit, the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 13 December 2002 in which it:

(1) _Dismissed the application for interim measures._

(2) _Reserved the costs._

**Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-**
**Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG against the**
**Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade**
**Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-356/02)**

(2003/C 55/75)

_(Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was_
_drafted: 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
29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn
GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen(Germany), represented by U. Sander
also a party before the Board of Appeal: KRAFFT, S.A,
Andoain, Spain

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
partially annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal
of 4 September 2002 inasmuch as the appeal of KRAFFT
S.A. was upheld and inasmuch as the applicant’s appeal
was not allowed

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

8.3.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/27

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Word mark ‘VITAKRAFT’ for
concerned: goods in Classes 1, 3, 4, 12 and
19 (inter alia, Chemicals used in
industry, science, photography, as
well as in agriculture, horticulture
and forestry, Bleaching preparations and other substances for
laundry use, Industrial oils and
greases, Vehicles and Building
materials (non metallic)) — Application No 303909

Owner of the right to KRAFFT, S.A.
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of opposition in the opposition
proceedings

Trade mark or sign The Spanish figurative marks
asserted by way of oppo- ‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1, 3,
sition in the opposition 4, 12 and 19 (inter alia, Chemicals
proceedings: used in industry, science, photography, as well as in agriculture,
horticulture and forestry, Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, Industrial
oils and greases, Vehicles and
Building materials (non metallic))

Decision of the Oppo- Refusal of registration as regards
sition Division: Classes 1 and 3 and dismissal of
the opposition in so far as it
concerned Classes 4, 12 and 19

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of KRAFFT S.A.’s appeal
Appeal: with regard to the following
goods in the application, ‘candles,
wicks’ in Class 4, ‘Vehicles, apparatus for locomotion by land, air
or water’ in Class 12 and ‘nonmetallic transportable buildings;
monuments, not of metal’ in
Class 19 and dismissal of the
applicant’s appeal in respect of
all goods in the application in
Classes 1 and 3

Grounds of claim: — Infringement of Article 43(2)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94( [1] ) and Rule 22(2) of the
implementing Regulation ( [2] );

—
Infringementof Article8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community Trade Mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
( [2] ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

**Action brought on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter**
**Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of**
**the European Communities**

**(Case T-360/02)**

(2003/C 55/76)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2002 by WolfDieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, Wittibreut, Germany,
represented by H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Declare that, in amending the decision of 22 June 2000
and in its conduct of the complaint procedure R/332/
2002 which followed, the Commission disregarded the
prescribed legal and administrative provisions inasmuch
as it announced a change in the decision of 22 June 2000,
carried out no hearing with representation of the parties
following an objection by the applicant and the direct
beneficiaries of the decision, ignored the formal requirements for attachment under German and Belgian law,
even though these had been notified to it in writing, and
instead instructed bailiff M to draw up a partition scheme,
which it received and, without giving reasons, then failed
to carry out;