Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

16.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 173/37

—
the contested decision is arbitrary and disproportionate, **Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association**
inasmuch as it does not analyse the possibility of **Contre l’Horaire d’E** **[´ ]** **té against the European Parliament**
excluding from its scope part of the Normas Forales **and the Council of the European Union**
which it envisages.

—
the procedure laid down in the ‘Steel Aid Code’ was **(Case T-84/01)**
infringed, _inter alia_ by exceeding the time-limit of
3 months prescribed in Article 6(5) of Decision
(2001/C 173/67)
2496/96/ECSC.

( [1] ) OJ 2001 L 76, p. 57.
_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
**Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against** Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2001 by
**the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market** the Association Contre l’Horaire d’E [´] té, established at Marly-leRoi (France), represented by Corinne Lepage and François
**(Case T-83/01)** Steinmetz, avocats.

(2001/C 173/66)
The applicant claims that the Court should:

_(Language of the case: English)_ —
annul Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
arrangements, published in the _Official Journal of the_
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
_European Communities_ on 2 February 2001.
European Communities on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA, a
company established under the laws of Germany, represented
by Dominique Dupuis Latour of BPDAGI, Paris (France).
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
set aside the contested decision;
The applicant in the present case, an association formed to
— draw the attention of the public to the alleged drawbacks
order the defendant to pay the costs.
arising from ‘changing the clocks’, seeks annulment of Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the
_Pleas in law and main arguments:_ Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements.

Trade mark concerned: OSTEOCALCIUM — registration
n. 0000955138. In support of its claims, the applicant maintains:

Product or service: ‘Pharmaceutical; veterinary and

—
sanitary preparations’ (class 5 of that the wrong legal basis has been chosen (Article 95 of
the Nice Agreement). the Treaty, formerly Article 100a), inasmuch as the
directive at issue does not satisfy the twofold condition
Challenged Decision Refusal of registration of the trade of participating in the approximation of the provisions
before the Board of mark in question, because of its laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Appeal: alleged descriptive character. Member States and having as its objective the establishGrounds submitted: Infringement of Article 7 (1) c) ment and functioning of the internal market;
and b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94. — that the directive at issue will result in drawbacks and
dangers to individuals, which should be seen as obstacles
to the proper functioning of the internal market.