Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 317/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.11.2001

In this case the applicant is bringing an action for failure to act _Pleas in law and main arguments_
and annulment.

The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
In support of its claims, the applicant asserts:
on the list of successful candidates drawn up in the context of
the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of

—
infringement of Articles 4(b), 86 and 88 of the ECSC staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
Treaty. It is alleged in this respect that the imposition on Technological Development programmes.
ECSC undertakings of charges which, in the case of
Charbonnages de France, will be directly or indirectly
financed, whereas the applicant, a private company, will
In support of her claims the applicant alleges:
have to meet them in the absence of any commercial
production, constitutes discrimination contrary to the

—
ECSC Treaty; The infringement of the duty to state reasons and the
principle of openness;

—
infringement of essential procedural requirements by
failure to state reasons; —
The infringement of the Selection Process Notice and the
rules governing the composition of a selection board;

—
lack of competence, since it does not appear from the
letter of 10 July 2001 that the decision which it contains —
The infringement of the principles of sound adminiswas formally taken by the Commission and that its
tration and equal treatment, in that the identity and the
signatory was authorised to sign it;
professional and administrative situation of the members
— of the Selection Committee were disclosed only to certain
breach of the principle of sound administration. candidates.

( [1] ) _Sacilor Lormines_ v _Commission_ (not yet published in the Official

Journal).

**Action brought on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation**
**against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal**
**Market**
**Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-183/01)**
**(Case T-182/01)**

(2001/C 317/56)
(2001/C 317/55)

_(Language of the case: English)_
_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European CommuniMarket was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 July 2001 by Alza Corporation,
European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Sophie Bachotet,
represented by Michael Edenborough, Hogarth Chambers,
resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
London (UK).
Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
— annul the decisions of the Board of Appeal and the
annul the decision of the Selection Committee COM/
Opposition Division in so far as they concern the
R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark that was not
application for registration of the applicant’s mark for the
sufficient to allow her to be included on the reserve list;
goods in Class 5; and as a consequence, order that the
Office should allow the applicant’s mark to proceed to

—
order the defendent to pay the costs. registration for the goods in Class 5;

10.11.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 317/29

—
in the alternative, annul the decisions of the Board of **Action brought on 4 August 2001 by Dominique Ramae-**
Appeal and the Opposition Division in so far as they **kers against the Commission of the European Communi-**
concern the application for registration of the applicant’s **ties**
mark for the goods in Class 5; and order that the
application in respect of the amended specification for
the goods in Class 5 be referred back to the Opposition **(Case T-185/01)**
Division for further consideration;

— (2001/C 317/57)
order that the applicant’s costs of defending the original
opposition and of prosecuting the appeal before the
Board of Appeal and of prosecuting this appeal before
_(Language of the case: French)_
the Court of First Instance be paid to the applicant.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ European Communities on 4 August 2001 by Dominique
Ramaekers, resident in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an
Applicant for the Com- Alza Corporation, Mountain address for service in Luxembourg.
munity trade mark: View, California, U.S.A.

The Community trade The word mark ‘E-TRANS’ for
mark concerned: certain goods in Classes 5, 10 The applicant claims that the Court should:
and 42 (e.g. pharmaceutical and
veterinary preparations and substances) — application — annul the decision of the selection board for the Research
No. 120089 selection COM/R/A/01/1999 to award her a mark that
was not sufficient to allow her to be included on the
Proprietor of the right to Hexal AG, Holzkirchen, Germany reserve list;
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo- —
in so far as necessary, annul the subsequent decision of
sition in the opposition
the Selection Committee and of the AECE establishing
proceedings:
the reserve list for the Research selection process
Trade mark or sign The German trade mark COM/R/A/01/1999;
asserted by way of oppo- ‘ESTRANS’ for certain goods in
sition in the opposition Class 5 —
order the defendant to pay the costs.
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo- Partial accept of the opposition,
sition Division: insofar as it relates to pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
and substances (Class 5)

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
The applicant in the present case objects to her non-inclusion
on the reserve list of successful candidates in the context of
Grounds of claim: — The goods covered by the
the Notice of a selection process for temporary members of
two marks are different;
staff COM/R/A/01/1999 for the management of Research and
— there is no likelihood of con- Technological Development programmes.
fusion; and

— Article 8(1)(b) of ReguThe pleas and main arguments are those put forward in Case
lation 40/94 ( [1] ) is not applicable. T-182/01 _Bachotet_ v _Commission_ ( [1] ).

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the ( [1] ) Not yet published in the OJEC.
Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).