Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 184/50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 2.8.2003

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Community Marine Enterprise Projects Sotrade mark: cietà Unipersonale di Alberto
Fiorenzi S.r.l.

Community trade mark The figurative mark ‘BAINsought: BRIDGE’ — Application for registration No 940007 requested
for products in Classes 18
(Leather and imitations of
leather, animal skins, hides;
trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking
sticks; whips, harness and saddlery) and 25 (Clothing, footwear, headgear).

Proprietor of mark or sign
cited in the opposition proceedings:

The Applicant

Mark or sign cited in op- Italian figurative marks
position: ‘BRIDGE’ (Reg. No 370836 and
704338) for products in
Class 25, the figurative mark
‘THE BRIDGE BASKET’ (Reg.
No 593651) for products in
Classes 18 and 25, trade name
‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 642952) for products in
Class 25, the three-dimensional
marks ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 704372 and No 633349)
for products in Classes 18 and
25, the trade name ‘FOOTBRIDGE’ (Reg. No 710102) for
products in Classes 18 and 25,
the figurative mark ‘THE
BRIDGE WAYFARER’ (Reg.
No 721569) for products in
Classes 18 and 25, the trade
name ‘OVER THE BRIDGE’
(Reg. No 630763) for products
in Classes 18 and 25, and the
trade name ‘THE BRIDGE’ (Reg.
No 642953) for products in
Class 18.

Decision of the Opposition Dismissal of the opposition.
Division:

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

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(Risk of confusion).

**Action brought on 3 June 2003 by European Federation**
**for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the European**
**Parliament and the Council of the European Union**

**(Case T-196/03)**

(2003/C 184/107)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 2003 by
European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EffCI), Brussels,
Belgium, represented by Mr K. Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Declare the application applicable and well founded, or, in
the alternative, join the questions on admissibility to the
examination of the substance

—
Order the partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive
2003/15/EC ( [1] ) of the European Parliament and the
Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive
76/768/EEC ( [2] ) on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to cosmetic products, so as to
remove the new Article 4a (2) and (2.1) ; Article 4b and
the new sub-paragraph added to Article 6(3) of the
Directive 76/768/EEC.

—
order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in the
proceedings

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant is a European Economic Interest Grouping
representing European manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients.
The provisions of Directive 2003/15/EC which it attacks
concern the prohibition of the performance of animal testing
on chemicals used as ingredients in cosmetic products as well
as the prohibition of all uses in cosmetic products of certain
chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for
reproduction.

In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
the prohibition of animal testing, the applicant advances the
following grounds:

—
The alleged infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant claims that the contested measure is
based on an incorrect legal basis. According to the
applicant, although it is based on Article 95 of the EC
treaty it is not intended to eliminate obstacles to the free
movement of goods or remove distortions of competition.
Further, the applicant advances an alleged misuse of
powers, in that the contested measure is, according to
the applicant, intended to promote the welfare of animals
which is not part of the internal market objectives of the
EC. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested
measure does not contain adequate reasons and due
motivation.

2.8.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/51

— An alleged infringement of the EC Treaty and of
secondary Community legislation in that the contested
measure actually infringes Article 95(3) and Directive 76/
768/EEC which require Community harmonisation
measures to be based on a ‘high level of protection’ of
health, safety, environment and consumers.

—
The applicant also advances a manifest error of assessment in that the contested measure allegedly fails to take
account of scientific assessments made by the Community
advisory bodies.

In support of its application to annul the provisions relating to
the prohibition of carcinogenic and similar substances, the
applicant advances the following grounds:

—
An alleged manifest error of assessment and inconsistency
with Directive 76/768/EEC. According to the applicant the
contested measure is inconsistent with the risk-based
approach in the latter Directive.

— An alleged infringement of an essential procedural
requirement, in that the prohibition should have been
made subject to the prior consultation and positive
opinion of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products
and Non Food Products intended for Consumers, in
accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 76/768/EEC.

—
An alleged infringement Article 95(3) of the EC Treaty
and the rules adopted for its application,

Further, the applicant alleges that both contested provisions
infringe superior principles of Community law, namely the
principles of proportionality, legal certainty and legitimate
expectations, the precautionary principle, the principle of
consistency, the principle of equal treatment and the need to
consider the balance of interests.

( [1] ) OJ L 66, 11.3.2003, p. 26-35.
( [2] ) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169-200.

**Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Proras S.r.l. Engi-**
**neering** **and** **Contracting** **against** **Commission** **of** **the**
**European Communities**

**(Case T-197/03)**

(2003/C 184/108)

_(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 30 May 2003 by Proras S.r.l.
Engineering and Contracting, represented by Gian Michele
Roberti, Alessandro Maria Lerro, Marco Simone Mariani, Paolo
Ziotti and Isabella Perego, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission
contained in the letter of 19 March 2003 from Mr P.B.
Knudsen, Director of Directorate A — Office of Cooperation, EuropeAid, D(2003) D/8511, ‘Proras exclusion from
participation in a TACIS procurement procedure’;

— find the Commission liable in damages for having
adopted the abovementioned decision;

—
order the defendant to make good the injury suffered by
the applicant as a result of that damage, quantified at
EUR 1 177 638,24 and further order the publication of
any judgment to that effect;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By the present action, Proras S.r.l. Engineering and Contracting
(hereinafter ‘Proras’ or ‘the applicant’) is challenging the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 19 March
2003 from Mr P.B. Knudsen, Director of Directorate A —
Office of Cooperation, EuropeAid, D(2003) D/8511, ‘Proras
exclusion from participation in a TACIS procurement procedure’ by which it imposes, on the basis of Article 93(c) and (f)
in conjunction with Article 96 of Regulation No 1605/
2002, ( [1] ) a sanction consisting in exclusion for two years
from tender procedures organised in the context of external
actions funded by the Commission in the framework of the
TACIS programme and, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288 EC,
compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that
decision. That decision was adopted after a procedure which
contained a number of irregularities, denied by the applicant,
which, according to the defendant, were committed in the
course of tender procedure SCR — E/110983/D/S/NI,
published by the unit ‘Programma de apoyo al Sector Educativo en Nicaragua’ and financed under the ‘ALA’ programme.

In support of its action for annulment, Proras puts forward
four pleas in law. First, the applicant claims that the EuropeAid
department, by adopting as a legal basis for the contested
decision a provision — such as Regulation No 1605/2002 —
which had not entered into force at the material time, has
infringed the principles of retroactivity, lawfulness of sanctions
and legitimate expectations. So far as concerns procedure, the
applicant criticises the aforementioned department for failing
to inform it of the steps it intended to take in terms of the
sanctions it proposed to impose on it or, at the very least,