Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 264/28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 1.11.2003

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

An investigation in relation to the applicant was ordered and
carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). After
the investigation had been completed, certain items appeared
in the European press referring to the applicant and the
investigation of her, such that the applicant considers them
disparaging and offensive. In addition, OLAF issued a press
release concerning the investigation and also included a
reference to it in its annual activity report. Although she was
not referred to by name in the documents made public by
OLAF, the applicant considers that the information which was
given made it particularly easy to identify her, so that it was
clear who was in question. Also, after the investigation had
been completed, the applicant requested OLAF to disclose to
her the file which it had drawn up on her, its final report and
any other information concerning what its findings were on
the accusations against her. However, OLAF refused to disclose
anything at all to her.

The applicant seeks, by her action, compensation for the nonmaterial damage and harm to her health which she claims to
have suffered for the abovementioned reasons. She pleads in
support of her action:

—
Infringement by OLAF of the second subparagraph
of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 1073/1999 ( [1] ), in
conjunction with Directive 95/46( [2] ) and Regulation
No 45/2001 ( [3] ). The applicant submits that it follows, on
reading the foregoing provisions in conjunction with
each other, that OLAF is obliged, when publishing reports
of its activities, to provide information in such a way that
the identity of the person to whom the investigation
relates is not revealed, directly or indirectly.

—
Infringement by OLAF of Article 8(2) of Regulation
No 1073/1999 in that it accepted or acquiesced in, and
ultimately allowed, the leaking of information to the
press regarding the investigation in relation to the
applicant.

—
Infringement of Article 8(2) and (3) of Regulation
No 1073/1999 which, in the applicant’s submission,
prohibits OLAF from publishing press releases relating to
investigations which it carries out.

—
Infringement by OLAF of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 6 of
Regulation No 1073/1999, of Article 4 of Decision 9950 of the Court of Auditors of 16 December 1999, and
of the more general obligation to observe the right to
good administration in accordance with Article 41 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
since it refused to disclose to the applicant the file on her

and its final report and thus denied her any possibility of
exercising her rights of defence effectively.

( [1] ) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136,
31.5.1999, p. 1).
( [2] ) Directive 95/46/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
( [3] ) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 18 December 2000 onthe protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
(OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

**Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l.**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-261/03)**

(2003/C 264/50)

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

An action against 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
18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l., Barletta, (Italy), represented by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg. RCN-Companhia de Importaçao e Esportaçao de Texteis, LDA. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— cancel or amed the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM no. R0067/2001-2;

—
consequently to order the registration of the trademark
‘GLOVE’ also for class 25 as requested by the firm Euro
Style ’94 S.r.l.;

—
order to bear the costs according to regulation.

1.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 264/29

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- The applicant.
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark Figurative colour mark ‘GLOVE’
sought: — Application No 464016 for a
range of goods and services in
Classes 25, 35 and 41.

Proprietor of mark or RCN-Companhia de importaçao e
sign cited in the oppo- esportaçao de Texteis, Lda.
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in the Spanish (registration
opposition: No 1.629.840) and international
(registration No 651.424) figurative trade mark ‘GLOIBE’ and portuguese (registration No 310.796)
and spanish (registration
No 1.981.850) word trade mark
‘GLOBE’ for goods in Class 25
(clothing, footwear and belts).

Decision of the Oppo- Refusal of the application for
sition Division: goods in class 25 (namely clothing, footwear and belts) and
admission of the Community trade mark application for the
remaining services in Classes 35
and 41.

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

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of
Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (Absence of confusion,
lack of any risk of association and
slight similarity of the products).

**Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Deutsche Telekom AG**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-271/03)**

(2003/C 264/51)

_(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 30 July 2003 by Deutsche Telekom
AG, Bonn (Germany), represented by K. Quack, U. Quack and
S. Ohlhoff, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the defendant’s decision of 21 May 2003, published
under Case No C(2003)1536 final;

—
in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of
the decision at the Court’s discretion;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs, including prelitigation costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By the contested decision the Commission decided that the
applicant had infringed Article 82a of the EC Treaty by
charging its competitors andfinal customers excessivemonthly
and flat-rate fees for access to its fixed network, thereby
impeding competition for access to the network onthe market.
The applicant was fined EUR 12,6 million.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 82
EC on the basis that it could not be accused of anti-competitive
conduct because the amount of the contested fees could not
be excessive since there was no restriction of competition.
Contrary to the Commission’s view, the cost/price discrepancy
according to the method it used is neither appropriate nor
sufficient to support a finding that the applicant’s advance and
final-customer fees were anti-competitive. The Commission’s
analysis of the cost/price discrepancy was misconceived in its
methods and there was no restriction of competition.

The applicant also claims that the Commission exceeded its
discretion in adopting the contested decision. By its decision
the Commission is impinging on the competencies conferred
by Community law on the German regulatory authority for
post and telecommunications and attempting to correct the
way in which the contested fees are regulated. For the same
reason the decision is disproportionate. Its effect is to subject
the applicant’s fees for access to the network to twofold
regulation and it therefore undermines the legal certainty
intended to be created by the allocation of competence
established by Community law in respect of fees in the
telecommunications sector.

Finally, by imposing a fine on the applicant, the defendant
infringed essential procedural requirements and Article 15(2)
of Regulation No 17/62.