Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 45/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.2.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should: provides compensation which offsets and stabilises the income
of fishery producers can only mean that, whenever a producer
— switches from one producers’ organisation to another, the
annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Article 2(2) of, and
bases for calculation laid down in Article 18(4) of the basic
the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1926/2000
regulation must be amended to the same extent.
of 11 September 2000 and Article 2(2) of, and the annex
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1103/2000 of 25 May
2000 providing for the granting of compensation to
producers’ organisations in respect of tuna delivered to The applicant further alleges misuse of powers by the Comthe processing industry from 1 October to 31 December mission.
1999 (OJ 2000 L 125, p. 18 and OJ 2000 L 230, p. 10);

—
in the alternative, annul such articles and annexes on the
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 of 22 December 1994
ground that the Commission misused its powers when amending Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common organinterpreting Article 18 of the basic regulation; ization of the market in fishery products and aquaculture (OJ
1994 L 350, p. 15).

—
order the Commission to provide for a new regulation
correcting the tonnage distributed between OPAGAC and
OPTUC in view of changes in their respective tonnage;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

**Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries**
The applicant organisation explains, first and foremost, that **Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
its composition changed on 1 July 1998 when it was joined **Market**
by two undertakings which had previously been part of
APTUC, another tuna producers’ organisation. Since then, the
registered tonnage and catches of the applicant organisation **(Case T-360/00)**
has increased, thus changing the basis for calculating the
compensation laid down in the basic regulation( [1] ).
(2001/C 45/47)

Following publication of Regulation No 1103/2000, cited
above, the applicant became aware of the fact that compensation had been distributed among producers’ organisations
_(Language of the case: English)_
without account being taken of changes to tonnages by
associations, so it then made the appropriate approaches to
the Spanish and Union authorities.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 November 2000 by Dart
Without resolving the matter of allocations for the third
Industries Inc., represented by Kay-Uwe Jonas of Oppenhoff &
quarter of 1999, the Commission adopted Regulation
Rädler (Cologne) Germany.
No 1926/2000, cited above, in which the allocations are, in
the view of the applicant, also erroneous.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

To date, the Commission has still not replied to the request of
the Secretarı´a General de Pesca Marı´tima for the correct —
annul the defendant’s decision R 278/2000-1 of 22 Sepinterpretation of the applicable legislation, so that the applicant
tember 2000;
is obliged to seek the interpretation of the basic regulations
implied in the articles of and annexes to the regulations
providing for compensation in respect of the period running —
order that the Application No. 716597 ‘UltraPlus’ be
from 1 October to 31 December 1999.
referred back to OHIM to be published in accordance
with CTMR Article 40 in respect of all the goods claimed
therein;
In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
by the contested provisions of Article 18(4) of Regulation

—
No 3579/92, cited above. In its view, the fact that the measure order OHIM to pay the costs.

10.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 45/23

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ _Pleas in law and main arguments_

Trade Mark concerned: Word mark ‘UltraPlus’ — Appli- The applicant in this case, the same as in Case T-91/00( [1] ),
cation No. 716597 challenges the refusal of the Settlements Office of the Joint
Sickness Insurance Scheme in Luxembourg to reimburse sums
incurred by him in the first half of the year 2000, on care
Product or Service: Class 21 (plastic ovenware for
services needed by one of his sons, as assistance by medical
use in microwave, convection and
auxiliaries within the meaning of Paragraph 1 of Title X of
conventional ovens) Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance. The Settlements
Office authorised those services only as nursing attendance
Contested Decision Refusal of registration by the within the meaning of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of those rules.
before the Board of examiner
Appeal:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Pleas in law relied on: Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b) raised in Case T-91/00.
and (c) of Regulation 40/94.

( [1] ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 24.

**Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Ma´rio Campo-**
**Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo Kind** **largo against the Commission of the European Communi-**
**against the Commission of the European Communities** **ties**

**(Case T-372/00)**
**(Case T-362/00)**

(2001/C 45/49)
(2001/C 45/48)

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

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European CommuniEuropean Communities on 11 December 2000 by Ma´rio
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Campolargo, residing at Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo
Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
Kind, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the appointing authority’s decision of 15 February
2000 annulling the appointment of the applicant as head
of the former unit DG XIII/G/2 and his promotion to
— annul the measures challenged for unlawful and grade A3, and the appointing authority’s implicit decision
erroneous application of the system of repayment of 12 September 2000 giving a negative response to the
adopted; complaint submitted by the applicant;

— order the Commission to carry out settlement, as in the — order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to
past, on the basis of invoices in respect of expenses for Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
paramedical assistance produced by the insured; First Instance and the expenses necessarily incurred for
the purposes of the proceedings, in particular the travel
and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of law
—
order the Commission to pay the costs. yers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of those Rules.