Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

1.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 264/33

The applicant finally submits that the Commission should
have initiated a formal investigation procedure under
Article 88(2) EC given the complexity of the arguments in fact
and law raised by the applicant and the economic analysis
required.

( [1] ) Case C-53/00 Ferring [2001] ECR I-9067 and Case C-280/00
Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, not
yet published in the ECR.
( [2] ) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992on the coordination
of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives
73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)
(OJ L 228, p. 1).

**Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Georgios Pantoulis**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-290/03)**

(2003/C 264/56)

_(Language of the case: Greek)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 August 2003 by Georgios
Pantoulis,resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Kharissios Tagaras, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the selection board for Competition
COM/A/6/01 — section 02 not to include him on the list
of successful candidates in that competition and the
defendant’s reply of 10 June 2003 by which it rejected his
complaint under no R/55/2003, lodged on 10 February
2003, requesting revocation of the selection board;

—
order the defendant to pay his costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

In support of his action, the applicant pleads breaches of the
competition notice, of the principles and rules governing the
functioning of selection boards, of the principle of equal
treatment and of the Staff Regulations (Annex III). In his
submission those breaches have arisen:

— from the failure to examine an unknown number of
candidates in the language which they had declared to be
their ‘principal’ language;

—
from the failure to examine the applicant in the third
language declared by him, and also from the (in his
submission) different treatment of the candidates as
regards examination of the thirdlanguage and any further
languages known by them;

—
from the appointment of further members of the selection
board in addition to those initially appointed, after
notification of the names of the candidates admitted to
the oral examination, from the fact that the selection
board included two members appointed by the Staff
Committee instead of one, and from the alteration in the
composition of the board when the oral examinations
were conducted.

**Action brought on 20 August 2003 by Messe Berlin**
**GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-292/03)**

(2003/C 264/57)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
20 August 2003 by Messe Berlin GmbH, Berlin, represented
by R. Lange and E. Schalast, lawyers.

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) of 5 June 2003 (Case No R 646/
2001-2);

—
order the defendant Office to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark The word mark ‘HOMETECH’ —
sought: application No 1985118

C 264/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 1.11.2003

Goods or services: Goods and services in Classes 16
and 41

Decision contested Refusalby the examiner to register
before the Board of the mark in respect of ‘printed
Appeal: matter’ in Class 16 and ‘arranging
and organising of trade fairs, exhibitions, seminars and congresses’
in Class 41

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the applicant’sappeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: — The mark is distinctive
within the meaning of
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94;

—
The mark is not a descriptive
indication within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

**Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-295/03)**

(2003/C 264/58)

_(Language of the case: Italian)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.,
represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested refusal.

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission ( [1] ).

( [1] ) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.

**Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-296/03)**

(2003/C 264/59)

_(Language of the case: Italian)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.,
represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested refusal.

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission( [1] ).

( [1] ) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.

**Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto Achille**
**s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C. against the Commission**
**of the European Communities**

**(Case T-297/03)**

(2003/C 264/60)

_(Language of the case: Italian)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto
Achille s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C., represented by
M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.