CELEX: C2003/200/58
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-244/03: Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti against the Commission of the European Communities

C 200/32               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          23.8.2003
Action brought on 23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby against the                  for restitutio in integrum occasioned by his failure to pay the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                    appeal fee in good time.
                        Marks and Designs)
                                                                          By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal rejected the
                          (Case T-242/03)                                 application and declared that the appeal was to be regarded as
                                                                          not having been lodged.
                          (2003/C 200/57)                                 The applicant submits that usually time-limits are entered in a
                                                                          diary for that purpose kept by his former lawyer in order to
                                                                          comply with and monitor the time-limits for bringing appeals
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of      and payment of the appeal fee, and the time-limits are only
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was            then crossed out of that diary after they have been observed.
                         submitted: German)                               In order to avoid any accidental crossing out of an entry in
                                                                          the diary, the member of that lawyer's staff responsible for
                                                                          overseeing the time-limits is required to initial any crossing out
                                                                          of a deadline. Since that long-standing, consistently reliable
                                                                          member of his staff had crossed out and initialled the time-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          limit entered in respect of the appeal case, the lawyer acting
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          for the applicant was entitled to assume that the appeal fee
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          had been paid in good time. Since the failure to observe the
23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby, Lahnau (Germany), represented
                                                                          time-limit for payment of the appeal fee was not caused by
by K. Müller, lawyer, of Kanzlei Krieger Froese & Kollegen. Leo
                                                                          any fault of the lawyer acting for the applicant, the application
Pharmaceutical Products BV, Weesp (Netherlands), was also a
                                                                          for restitutio in integrum is founded and the action must be
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                          granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      14.3.2003, thereby granting the applicant's application to
      the Board of Appeal for restitutio in integrum, occasioned
      by his failure to observe the time-limit for payment of the
      appeal fee;                                                         Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare that the appeal is to be regarded as having been
      lodged.
                                                                                                   (Case T-244/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 200/58)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant sought registration of the word mark ‘leovat’               An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
with the defendant office in respect of goods in Classes 3, 4, 5          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
and 31 (application No 657221). Leo Pharmaceutical Products               European Communities on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti,
BV, proprietor of the international word mark ‘Leo’ for goods             residing in Nice (France), represented by Juan Ramon Iturriaga-
in Classes 3 and 5, lodged an opposition to registration.                 goitia and Karine Delvolvé, avocats.
By decision of 6 July 2001, the Opposition Division allowed               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the opposition on the ground that there was a likelihood of
confusion owing to the high level of similarity of the goods
and the signs. The applicant lodged an appeal against that                —     annul the decision of the Directorate-General Personnel
decision in good time. On 19 September 2001, the Registry of                    and Administration of 5 May 2003;
the Board of Appeal informed the applicant that the appeal fee
had not been received by the office before the expiry, on                 —     order a challenge to two of the members of the medical
6 September 2001, of the time-limit for bringing an appeal,                     committee;
and gave the applicant the opportunity to submit his observa-
tions on the matter. On 24 September 2001 the applicant
effected payment of the appeal fee and simultaneously applied             —     order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 20 June 2003 by Fédération des
                                                                         Nationale des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA), the
The applicant, a former Commission official, worked for many             Fédération Nationale Bovine (FNB), the Fédération Nationale
years in the Berlaymont building, which was then contami-                des Producteurs de Lait (FNPL) and Jeunes Agriculteurs (JA),
nated with asbestos. In 1996, the applicant applied for recog-           Fédération Nationale, established in Paris, represented by Bruno
nition of the occupational nature of her illness and, in 1998,           Néouze and Valérie Ledoux, lawyers, with an address for
requested that a medical committee be consulted in accordance            service in Luxembourg.
with Article 21 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of
the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
Occupational Disease. That medical committee issued a first
                                                                         The applicants claims that the Court should:
majority opinion in 2000, but, after a complaint by the
applicant, the Commission decided to refer to it a second
time. On 23 April 2003, the applicant sent a diagnosis to the            —     annul the Commission Decision of 2 April 2003,
Commission, requesting that it be examined by the medical                      No C.38.279/F3 — French beef in respect of the FNSEA,
committee. In reply to that request, the Commission stated, by                 the FNB, the FNPL and the JA;
letter of 5 May 2003, that the medical committee had already
finished its work and that it was therefore impossible to
submit the diagnosis sent by the applicant to it for its opinion.        —     alternatively, cancel the fines imposed on them;
The applicant challenges that latter decision, which she claims
should be annulled. She also argues that the composition of
the medical committee should have been changed at the time               —     further and alternatively, reduce the amount of the fines;
of the second reference to it, and therefore requests that two
of its members be challenged. In support of her claims, she
alleges misuse of powers, lack of independence and neutrality            —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
on the part of the medical committee, infringements of the                     pay the costs.
principle of sound administration and the duty to pay due
regard to the welfare of officials, and infringement of the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 20 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale
des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA) and Others
     against Commission of the European Communities                      The contested decision in the present case is the same as that
                                                                         in Case T-217/03 Fédération Nationale de la Coopération Bétail
                        (Case T-245/03)                                  et Viande (FNCBV) v Commission (1).
                        (2003/C 200/59)
                  (Language of the case: French)                         The pleas and main arguments are the same as those put
                                                                         forward in that case.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             (1) See p. 30 of this Official Journal.