Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

20.3.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/41

—
declares, in Article 3, that certain aid that Spain intends
to grant to the applicant to cover exceptional restructuring costs in 2001 are incompatible with Article 7 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002
on State aid to the coal industry ( [4] );

—
requires Spain, in Article 4, to recover, among other
amounts, the aid mentioned in Article 1.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

—
lack of competence on the part of the Commission to
adopt the decision challenged, following the expiry of the
ECSC Treaty;

—
the inappropriateness of the procedure followed in
adopting the decision challenged, the Commission having
failed to previously to revoke Articles 1, 2 and 5 of
Decision 2002/827/ECSC;

—
infringement of the principle of legal certainty and
cumulative procedural errors, inasmuch as Article 1 of
the decision challenged treats as unlawful and incompatible with the common market certain aid authorised by
Decision 98/637/ECSC, even though that aid had already
been held to be justified in Decision 2002/827/ECSC.

—
a manifest error of assessment of the facts, inasmuch as
the Commission failed to take the view that certain aid
granted to the applicant to cover exceptional restructuring costs was justified.

( [1] ) T-291/02 González y Díez v Commission (OJ 2002 C 289, p. 33).
( [2] ) OJ 1998 L 303, p. 57
( [3] ) OJ 2001 L 58, p. 24
( [4] ) OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1.

**Action brought on 20 January 2004 by Jacques Verborgh**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-26/04)**

(2004/C 71/71)

_(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 20 January 2004 by Jacques
Verborgh, residing in Aalter (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Annul the decision of the appointing authority of
20 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
classification in Grade A 7;

—
Annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of the
appointing authority of 9 October 2003 rejecting the
applicant’s complaint;

—
Order the defendant to pay all of the costs of the
proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Following the Court’s judgment in Case T-17/95 ( [1] ), the
Commission adopted an amendment of the rules on the
criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification
in step on recruitment. By the contested decision, it confirmed
the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 at the date of his
recruitment and for that reason rejected his request to be
reclassified.

In support of his action, the applicant invokes the lack of
reasoning in the contested decision, a manifest error of
appraisal and alleged discrimination between the applicant
himself, whose request to be reclassified was rejected, and
other officials who, having professional experience as long as
his own, were able to secure reclassification.

( [1] ) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 October 1995; published in OJ 1995 C 315 of
25.11.1995, p. 14.

**Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the El Corte Inglés**
**S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market**

**(Case T-27/04)**

(2004/C 71/72)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 27 January 2004 by El Corte
Inglés, established in Madrid, represented by lawyers J.-L. Rivas
Zurdo and E. López Leiva, members of the Ilustre Colegio de
Madrid.

C 71/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.3.2004

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

—
annul the decision by OHIM (Second Board of Appeal) of
10 November 2003 in case R 0285/2002-2, which by
dismissing the applicant’s appeal gives grounds for a
future right to Community trade mark No 1.155.985,
‘THE OBSERVER’, in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41;

—
refuse registration to Community mark No 1.155.985
‘THE OBSERVER’ in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41;

—
order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the
costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- Guardian Newspaper Limited
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Word mark ‘THE OBSERVER’ —
applied for: Application No 1.155.985, for
goods and services in Classes 9,
16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38 and 41

Proprietor of the oppos- Applicant
ing trade mark or sign:

Opposing trade mark or Spanish figurative mark
sign: (No 953.859) and word mark
(No 2.116.030) for all goods and
services in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35
and 41

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

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: — Sufficient use of the two
marks which form the basis
for the opposition

— Incorrect application of
Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

**Action brought on 26 January 2004 by Castellblanch,**
**S.A., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-29/04)**

(2004/C 71/73)

_(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was_
_submitted: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 January 2004 by Castellblanch, S.A., Sant Sadurni d’Anoia,
Spain, represented by Mr F. de Visscher, Mr E. Cornu, Mr E. De
Gryse and Ms D. Moreau, lawyers. Champagne Louis Roederer
S.A. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
17 November 2003;

—
Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- Castellblanch S.A.
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Figurative mark ‘CRISTAL CASsought: TELLBLANCH’ for goods in
class 33 (wine)

Proprietor of mark or CHAMPAGNE LOUIS ROEDEsign cited in the oppo- RER, S.A.
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in National word mark ‘CRISTAL’
opposition: for goods in class 33 (champagne,
sparkling wines)

Decision of the Oppo- Registration refused
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal rejected
Appeal: