CELEX: C2003/264/50
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-261/03: 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)

C 264/28                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  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
An investigation in relation to the applicant was ordered and                  of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). After                    conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136,
the investigation had been completed, certain items appeared                   31.5.1999, p. 1).
in the European press referring to the applicant and the                   (2) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
investigation of her, such that the applicant considers them                   of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard
disparaging and offensive. In addition, OLAF issued a press                    to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
release concerning the investigation and also included a                       such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
                                                                           (3) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
reference to it in its annual activity report. Although she was
                                                                               the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
not referred to by name in the documents made public by                        with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
OLAF, the applicant considers that the information which was                   institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
given made it particularly easy to identify her, so that it was                (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).
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.
                                                                           Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l.
The applicant seeks, by her action, compensation for the non-              against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
material damage and harm to her health which she claims to                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
have suffered for the abovementioned reasons. She pleads in
support of her action:
                                                                                                     (Case T-261/03)
—     Infringement by OLAF of the second subparagraph
      of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 1073/1999 (1), in                                           (2003/C 264/50)
      conjunction with Directive 95/46 (2) and Regulation
      No 45/2001 (3). The applicant submits that it follows, on
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
      reading the foregoing provisions in conjunction with
                                                                           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
      each other, that OLAF is obliged, when publishing reports
                                                                                                    submitted: English)
      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.
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     Infringement by OLAF of Article 8(2) of Regulation                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      No 1073/1999 in that it accepted or acquiesced in, and               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      ultimately allowed, the leaking of information to the                18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l., Barletta, (Italy), represent-
      press regarding the investigation in relation to the                 ed by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
      applicant.                                                           bourg. RCN-Companhia de Importaçao e Esportaçao de Texte-
                                                                           is, LDA. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
                                                                           of Appeal.
—     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            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      investigations which it carries out.
                                                                           —     cancel or amed the decision of the Second Board of
                                                                                 Appeal of OHIM no. R0067/2001-2;
—     Infringement by OLAF of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 6 of
      Regulation No 1073/1999, of Article 4 of Decision 99-
                                                                           —     consequently to order the registration of the trademark
      50 of the Court of Auditors of 16 December 1999, and
      of the more general obligation to observe the right to                     ‘GLOVE’ also for class 25 as requested by the firm Euro
                                                                                 Style ’94 S.r.l.;
      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        —     order to bear the costs according to regulation.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 264/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-            The applicant.                              —     annul the defendant’s decision of 21 May 2003, published
munity trade mark:                                                              under Case No C(2003)1536 final;
Community trade mark          Figurative colour mark ‘GLOVE’
sought:                       — Application No 464016 for a               —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of
                              range of goods and services in                    the decision at the Court’s discretion;
                              Classes 25, 35 and 41.
Proprietor of mark or         RCN-Companhia de importaçao e               —     order the defendant to pay the costs, including pre-
sign cited in the oppo-       esportaçao de Texteis, Lda.                       litigation costs.
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in the     Spanish                 (registration
opposition:                   No 1.629.840) and international
                              (registration No 651.424) figurat-
                              ive trade mark ‘GLOIBE’ and por-            Pleas in law and main arguments
                              tuguese (registration No 310.796)
                              and        spanish      (registration
                              No 1.981.850) word trade mark
                              ‘GLOBE’ for goods in Class 25               By the contested decision the Commission decided that the
                              (clothing, footwear and belts).             applicant had infringed Article 82a of the EC Treaty by
                                                                          charging its competitors and final customers excessive monthly
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the application for              and flat-rate fees for access to its fixed network, thereby
sition Division:              goods in class 25 (namely cloth-            impeding competition for access to the network on the market.
                              ing, footwear and belts) and                The applicant was fined EUR 12,6 million.
                              admission of the Community tra-
                              de mark application for the
                              remaining services in Classes 35
                              and 41.                                     The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 82
                                                                          EC on the basis that it could not be accused of anti-competitive
Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the appeal.                    conduct because the amount of the contested fees could not
Appeal:                                                                   be excessive since there was no restriction of competition.
                                                                          Contrary to the Commission’s view, the cost/price discrepancy
Pleas in law:                 Incorrect        application        of      according to the method it used is neither appropriate nor
                              Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC)             sufficient to support a finding that the applicant’s advance and
                              No 40/94 (Absence of confusion,             final-customer fees were anti-competitive. The Commission’s
                              lack of any risk of association and         analysis of the cost/price discrepancy was misconceived in its
                              slight similarity of the products).         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
Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Deutsche Telekom AG                     post and telecommunications and attempting to correct the
against the Commission of the European Communities                        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
                        (Case T-271/03)                                   regulation and it therefore undermines the legal certainty
                                                                          intended to be created by the allocation of competence
                        (2003/C 264/51)                                   established by Community law in respect of fees in the
                                                                          telecommunications sector.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          Finally, by imposing a fine on the applicant, the defendant
                                                                          infringed essential procedural requirements and Article 15(2)
An Action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 of Regulation No 17/62.
ties 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.