CELEX: C2003/083/52
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-25/03: Action brought on 28 January 2003 by Marco de Stefano against the Commission of the European Communities

5.4.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 83/23
Action brought on 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi di                      In the contested decision, the Commission, inter alia, takes the
Frutta against the Commission of the European Communi-                     view that 32 A.TR.1 certificates were falsified. The Commission
                                 ties                                      refused the applicant’s request for remission of
                                                                           ITL 3 296 190 371.
                          (Case T-23/03)
                                                                           In support of its claim for annulment of the part of the
                          (2003/C 83/51)                                   Commission’s decision refusing remission, the applicant sub-
                                                                           mits that the Commission infringed its right of access to the
                                                                           file, inasmuch as, in the course of providing access to the file,
                   (Language of the case: German)                          the Commission failed to disclose and produce to the applicant
                                                                           all the documents relevant to the case.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  The applicant further submits that the Commission failed to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 comply with its remission or repayment obligation under
European Communities on 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi
                                                                           Article 239 of the Customs Code in respect of the 32 allegedly
di Frutta, Verona, Italy, represented by D. Ehle, lawyer.                  falsified A.TR.1 certificates, since those 32 certificates too were
                                                                           issued and registered and handed over to the exporter when
                                                                           clearing the goods for export with the knowledge and cooper-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                ation of the competent Turkish customs authority, which was
                                                                           aware of the possibility that the goods might not be of Turkish
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2002                   origin.
      (REC 10/01), in so far as the Commission refused to remit
      or repay the import duties amounting to
      ITL 3 296 190 371 collected by way of post-clearance                 Moreover, the Commission infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the
      recovery in respect of 32 imports covered by 32 specified
                                                                           Customs Code since the Turkish customs authorities knew or
      A.TR.1 certificates;
                                                                           could reasonably have known that the deliveries for which the
                                                                           32 A.TR 1 certificates were issued, were not of Turkish origin,
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               whereas, when importing the products, the applicant acted in
                                                                           good faith and was unaware of the misconduct of the Turkish
                                                                           customs authority.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 of 22 December 1986 on
                                                                                imports into the Community of agricultural products originating
Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 ( 1) abolished, with certain                        in Turkey (OJ 1986 L 380, p. 16).
exceptions, the customs duties imposed on the goods originat-
ing in Turkey listed in Annex II to the EEC Treaty.
Between 5 April 1995 and 20 November 1997, the applicant,
an Italian company which, inter alia, processes imported fruit
juice concentrates, put on the market for free circulation apple
and pear juice concentrates declared to originate in Turkey.
According to the applicant, the shipments were accompanied                 Action brought on 28 January 2003 by Marco de Stefano
by proper documents, including the A.TR.1 movement of                         against the Commission of the European Communities
goods certificates. In 1998, the customs authorities in Ravenna
presented the applicant with a list of A.TR.1 certificates. On
the basis of examinations of the authenticity and regularity of                                      (Case T-25/03)
the certificates carried out at the offices of the Turkish customs
authority, it was alleged that the applicant had imported apple
juice concentrates with falsified A.TR.1 certificates. At the                                        (2003/C 83/52)
same time, the applicant was required to pay import duties by
way of post-clearance recovery.
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
The applicant lodged an objection to the customs assessment
notices issued by the competent customs authority in Ravenna.
At the same time, it applied for remission under                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of the Customs Code. The                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Italian tax authorities submitted the decision on the remission            European Communities on 28 January 2003 by Marco de
of the import duties collected by way of post-clearance                    Stefano, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
recovery to the Commission.                                                sanden and Guy Verbrugge, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/24               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s           —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      candidature and refusing to admit him to the written                      OHIM of 18 November 2002 in file R 803/2001-2;
      procedure in open competition EUR/A/166/01, as noti-
      fied to him by decision of the appointing authority of              —     uphold, therefore, the applicant’s opposition to regis-
      8 April 2002;                                                             tration of the trade mark ‘CARPO’, and
—     in the alternative, order compensation for non-material             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      damage provisionally estimated at EUR 2 500;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Applicant for the Com-        Basf Aktiengegesellschaft
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           munity trade mark:
                                                                          The Community trade           Word mark ‘CARPO’ for products
The applicant in the present case challenges the decision                 mark concerned:               in class 5 (fungicides, herbicides,
refusing to allow him to take part in the tests in competition                                          insecticides and pesticides).
EUR/A/166/01, held for the purpose of constituting a reserve
for recruitment of A7/A6 administrators in the area of                    Proprietor of the right to    Applicant.
auditing, on the ground that the qualifications and diplomas              the trade mark or sign
produced by the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid             asserted by way of oppo-
down in point III.B.2 of the notice of competition. The                   sition in the opposition
Selection Board considered that the applicant’s qualifications of         proceedings:
‘Ragioniere e Perito Commerciale’ and ‘Revisore Commerciale’
could not be regarded as equivalent to the qualification of               Trade mark or sign            Spanish word mark ‘HARPO Z’
‘Dottore Commercialista’.                                                 asserted by way of oppo-      for products in Class 5 (prep-
                                                                          sition in the opposition      arations for destroying vermin,
                                                                          proceedings:                  fungicides, herbicides).
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges failure to comply
with of the notice of competition and infringement of the duty            Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition rejected.
to state reasons, and alleges that there was in the circumstances         sition Division:
of the case a manifest error of assessment. Specifically, he
argues that the Selection Board erred in its assessment of his            Decision of the Board of      Action dismissed.
qualifications, diplomas, professional activity and training              Appeal:
periods in auditing which in fact enable him to claim a
professional qualification of equivalent level.                           Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                                        of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                                        lihood of confusion)
Action brought on 31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscien-
ce S.A. against Office for the Harmonisation of the                       Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
     Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Alliance Ltd. against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                                   Internal Market
                         (Case T-35/03)
                                                                                                    (Case T-37/03)
                         (2003/C 83/53)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 83/54)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscience S.A., the registered               European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
office of which is in Lyon (France), represented by Enrique               Alliance Ltd., Reading, United Kingdom, represented by Ms
Armijo Chávarri.                                                          Alexandra Dellmeier, Attorney at Law.