CELEX: C2004/085/52
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2003 in Case T-334/02 Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE against the Commission of the European Communities (FEOGA — Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed — Request for abolition of Community financial assistance — Inaction on the part of the Commission — Action for failure to act)

C 85/26                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           3.4.2004
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    established in Bremen (Germany), and Hauptverband der
                                                                              Deutschen Bauindustrie eV, established in Berlin (Germany),
                      of 18 December 2003                                     represented by Professor H.-P. Schneider, against the Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner
in Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission                           and A. Böhlke) — application under Article 243 EC for interim
                of the European Communities (1)                               measures, seeking extension of the period of coexistence of
                                                                              national standards and European standards EN 13162:2001 to
(Officials — Investigation carried out by the European Anti-                  13171:2001 which is provided for by the Commission
Fraud Office (OLAF) — Duty to assist — Action for                             Communication of 22 May 2003 published in the framework
annulment and for damages clearly inadmissible and clearly                    of the implementation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ
                         unfounded in law)                                    2003 C 120, p. 17) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                              Instance made an order on 28 November 2003 the operative
                           (2004/C 85/50)                                     part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)                            1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino, official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H.-
P. Hartvig and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment of
a series of measures relating to investigations carried out by
the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to requests for                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials
of the European Communities and, second, for compensation                                            of 2 December 2003
in respect of the alleged damage — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President,                 in Case T-334/02 Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
A. W. H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                  Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE against the Com-
made an order on 18 December 2003, the operative part of                                mission of the European Communities (1)
which is as follows:
                                                                              (FEOGA — Improvement of the conditions under which
1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible and as clearly          agricultural products are processed and marketed — Request
      unfounded in law.                                                       for abolition of Community financial assistance — Inaction
2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs, including those             on the part of the Commission — Action for failure to act)
      incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-215/02
      R and Case C-471/02 P(R).                                                                          (2004/C 85/52)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.                                                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                              In Case T-334/02: Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
                                                                              Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE, established in Athens
                                                                              (Greece), represented by I. Stamoulis, lawyer, with an address
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the
                             INSTANCE                                         European Communities (Agent: M. Kondou-Durande) — appli-
                                                                              cation for a declaration under Article 232 EC that the
                      of 28 November 2003                                     Commission failed to act in that, first, it did not initiate the
                                                                              procedure for failure to fulfil obligations in relation to the
in Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others against                        Hellenic Republic for a breach of Community law which
       the Commission of the European Communities                             harmed the applicant’s economic interests and, second, it did
                                                                              not abolish ex tunc the financial assistance of the European
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility —                           Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) which
                              Urgency)                                        was granted for the purposes of the co-financing of the
                                                                              applicant’s investment project as approved by Decision
                           (2004/C 85/51)                                     No 324986/505 of the Greek authorities of 17 February 1994
                                                                              — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                   (Language of the case: German)                             J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                              Registrar, made an order on 2 December 2003, the operative
                                                                              part of which is as follows:
In Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt, resident in Dallgow-
Döberitz (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG,                      1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.
 ---pagebreak--- 3.4.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/27
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
      Commission.                                                         sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      partial rejection of the application
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.                                                    Appeal:                       in respect of goods and services in
                                                                                                        Classes 9 and 35. For the rest,
                                                                                                        dismissal of the appeal lodged by
                                                                                                        the applicant
                                                                          Grounds of claim:             —     The trade mark opposed is a
                                                                                                              well-known mark;
Action brought on 1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert
René S. à r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                              —     The trade mark opposed is
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                            also       protected   against
                                                                                                              exploitation outside the area
                                                                                                              of similarity in respect of
                         (Case T-336/03)                                                                      goods and services;
                          (2004/C 85/53)                                                                —     There is a significant simi-
                                                                                                              larity between the marks.
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert René S. à r.l., of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat. A further party to the                                        (Case T-9/04)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Orange A/S, of
Copenhagen.                                                                                       (2004/C 85/54)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the decision adopted on 14 July 2003 by the
      Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      No R 559/2002-4;                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                  cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
Applicant for the Com-         Orange A/S                                       his request;
munity trade mark:
                                                                          —     Declare that on 29 October 2001, the applicant, then in
The Community trade            the verbal mark ‘MOBILIX’ for                    the service of the Angola Delegation, was the victim of
mark applied for:              goods and services in Classes 9,                 an accident at work, which occurred therein;
                               16, 35, 37, 38 and 42 — Appli-
                               cation No 671 396                          —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
ings:
Trade-mark right               the national verbal and Com-               The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to treat
opposed:                       munity mark ‘OBELIX’ for goods             as an accident at work, with the consequential benefits
                               and services in, inter alia, Class-        provided for in the Staff Regulations in relation to insurance
                               es 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42                against risks of occupational accidents and diseases, the