Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

15.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 275/51

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—
declare that the Community has, through the European
Parliament and the Council, incurred non-contractual
liability, and order the defendants to make good all loss
suffered by the applicants on account of the directive in
question;

—
declare that interest at the annual rate of 8 % (or at an
appropriate rate to be fixed by the Court) is payable from
the date of the Court’s decision finding the Community
liable until the time of payment;

—
order the defendants to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

This application claims compensation for the damage supposedly caused by Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending
Council Directive 79/373/EEC onthe circulation of compound
feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/
EEC ( [1] ).

The abovementioned directive introduces a requirement that
manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs should indicate on
their labels the precise quantities (in percentages) of all
feed materials included in each feedingstuff. By so doing it
establishes quite new labelling rules for compound feedingstuffs which, according to the applicants, will result in the
compulsory divulgence of the know-how and fundamental
commercial secrets of the compound feedingstuff manufacturers. The introduction of those rules will enable the compound feedingstuff manufacturers’ customers to know not
only the formula but also the exact cost of the feed materials,
so that the applicants will, they argue, lose their greatest
vehicle of competition and their very existence could be
jeopardised.

In support of their claims the applicants maintain that the
contested directive:

—
infringes their know-how and commercial secrets which
are protected in the Community legal order;

—
fails to have regard to protection of undistorted competition, to reinforcement of the competitiveness of the
Community industry and encouragement of technological R. & D.;

—
infringes the right to property and the right to carry on
economic activity freely;

—
militates against improvement of agricultural products
and protection of the environment;

—
violates the principle of proportionality;

—
treats the applicants unequally in comparison with traders
active in the sphere of foodstuffs for human beings;

—
was adopted on the wrong legal basis. The directive at
issue ought to have been based on Article 37 of the EC
Treaty and not on Article 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty,
since it has nothing to do with the veterinary and
phytosanitary field.

( [1] ) OJ L 63 of 6 June 2002, p. 23.

**Action brought on 12 September 2003 by La Baronia de**
**Turis against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-323/03)**

(2003/C 275/86)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

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
12 September 2003 by La Baronia de Turis, Cooperativa
Valenciana, established in Turis, Valencia (Spain), represented
by Juan José Carreño Moreno, lawyer.

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 (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 July 2003 in Case R 57/
2003-2;

—
order that registrationbe refused in respectof Community
trade mark No 2 057 487 ‘LA BARONNIE’, owned by
the undertaking Baron Philippe de Rothschild SA, to
designate products within Class 33 of the Nice Classification.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Baron Philippe de Rothschild SA.
munity trade mark:

C 275/52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 15.11.2003

Community trade mark Word mark ‘LA BARONNIE’ —
sought: Application No. 2 057 487 for
products in Class 33 (alcoholic
beverages, except beers).

Proprietor of mark or The applicant.
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in National word mark ‘BARONIA’
opposition: for products covered by Class 33
(‘wines of all types’).

Decision of the Oppo- Opposition refused.
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).

**Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich**
**Winter against Commission of the European Commu-**
**nities**

**(Case T-324/03)**

(2003/C 275/87)

_(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 15 September 2003 by Heinrich
Winter, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
name on the list of officials deemed to be most deserving
of promotion to Grade A 4 for the 2002 promotions
procedure published in Administrative Notices (AN)
No 2002-68 of 12 August 2002;

— annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
name on the list of promoted officials published in AN
No 2002-69 of 14 August 2002;

—
order the Commission to pay him token damages of
EUR 1 for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
failure to draw up the staff report for the period 1997 to
1999;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

In support of his application, the applicantalleges infringement
of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle
of equal treatment and non-discrimination and manifest error
of assessment.

**Action brought on 25 September 2003 by O** **2** **(Germany)**
**GmbH & Co. OHG against Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-328/03)**

(2003/C 275/88)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 September 2003 by O 2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG, Munich, Germany, represented by Mr
N. Green QC, Mr K. Bacon, Barrister, Mr B. Amory, lawyer and
Ms Francesca Marchini Camia, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul articles 2 and 3(a) of the Commission Decision of
16 July 2003 in case COMP/38.369;

—
order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;

—
make any such further order as the Court deems appropriate.