CELEX: C1999/001/32
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Una Film 'City Revue' GmbH against the European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Case T-175/98) (1999/C 1/32)

4.1.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 1/15
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð order the Office to accord a filing date to Community
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               trade mark application No 000200006, submitted on
                                                                       19 April 1996;
                     of 23 October 1998
in Case T-100/98 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                 the European Communities                         Ð order the Office to pay all the costs.
  (Interlocutory proceedings Ð Admissibility Ð Urgency)
                        (1999/C 1/30)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: English)                    Trade mark           Baby Dry' Ð
                                                                  concerned:           Application No 000200006.
                                                                  Product of           diapers for babies
In Case T-100/98 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing in                service:
Harrow, Middlesex, England, represented by Raymond St             Decision             refusal of registration by the examiner
John Murphy, Solicitor, Merriman White, 3 King's Bench            contested before
Walk, Inner Temple, London, against Commission of the             the Board of
European Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð                      Appeal:
application for interim measures in the context of an
                                                                  Pleas in law         Ð infringement of      Article 7(1)(b) of
action seeking compensation for the damage which the
                                                                  relied on:               Regulation (EC)   No 40/94
applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                                                                                       Ð infringement of      Article 7(1)(c) of
publication, under the Commission's responsibility, of a
                                                                                           Regulation (EC)   No 40/94
fact sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and
qualifications for general and specialist medical                 Alternatively:       Ð infringement of Articles 7(3) and
practitioners Ð the President of the Court of First                                        62 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Instance made an order on 23 October 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. Costs are reserved.
                                                                  Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Una Film City
                                                                  Revue' GmbH against the European Parliament and
                                                                                  Council of the European Union
                                                                                         (Case T-175/98)
                                                                                          (1999/C 1/32)
Action brought on 6 October 1998 by The Procter &
Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                 (Language of the case: German)
                the Internal Market (OHIM)
                       (Case T-163/98)
                                                                  An action against the European Parliament and the
                        (1999/C 1/31)
                                                                  Council of the European Union was brought before the
                                                                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
               (Language of the case: French)                     23 October 1998 by Una Film City Revue' GmbH of
                                                                  Vienna, Austria, represented by Dr Rainer Borgelt, of the
                                                                  Düsseldorf Bar, and Professor Dr Manfred Dauses, of
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the             Bamberg, Germany, with an address for service in
Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Reding & Felten, 2 Rue
First Instance on 6 October 1998 by The Procter &                 J. P. Brasseur, Luxembourg.
Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United
States of America), represented by Thierry van Innis, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58
Rue Charles Martel.
                                                                  Ð Declare Directive 98/43/EC of the European
                                                                       Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                  approximation of the laws, regulations and
should:                                                                administrative provisions of the Member States
                                                                       relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco
                                                                       products (OJ 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9, enclosed as
Ð annul the Board of Appeal's decision of 31 July 1998;                Annex K3) to be null and void,
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/16                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.1.1999
     in the alternative declare Article 3 of that directive to       in the Community legal order such as for example the
     be null and void in so far as the ban it lays down              right to property and the right to freedom of expression.
     includes advertising whose effects do not extend
     beyond the territory of the Member State in question,
                                                                     Finally, it is alleged that the duty to state reasons provided
                                                                     for in Article 190 of the EC Treaty has been infringed
     further in the alternative declare Article 3 of that            since, first, no or insufficient grounds were given for
     directive to be null and void in so far as it bans the          regulating essential aspects and, secondly, non of the
     use, in advertising for non-tobacco products, of brand          necessary details as to the principles of subsidiarity and
     names, trade marks and emblems used for tobacco                 proportionality were provided, neither were the real
     products;                                                       reasons for issuing the directive ascertainable.
Ð Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Action brought on 31 October 1998 by Georgsmarienhütte
The applicant is a distributor of cinema advertising,                Holding GmbH against the Commission of the European
exclusively in Austrian cinemas. It is the market leader in                                    Communities
Austria in the distribution of cinema advertisements for
tobacco products. Its only client for tobacco-related                                        (Case T-181/98)
advertising is Austria Tabak. Since it is also Austria
                                                                                              (1999/C 1/33)
Tabak's only contractor for tobacco-related products, the
applicant is the sole coordinator for the distribution of all
cinema advertisements for tobacco products in Austria.
                                                                                     (Language of the case: German)
The applicant considers that it will be particularly hard hit
by the economic consequences of the ban on tobacco                   An action against the Commission of the European
advertising because of its position in the market since not          Communities was brought before the Court of First
only will cinema advertisement income for tobacco-related            Instance of the European Communities on 31 October
products dry up immediately but indirect advertising' (as           1998 by Georgsmarienhütte Holding GmbH, whose
it is referred to in the directive) will also be affected, and       registered office is in Georgsmarienhütte (Germany),
these two areas of advertising represent a large part of the         represented by Walter Klosterfelde, Thomas Jestaedt and
applicant's turnover.                                                Martin Sura, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
                                                                     Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
The legal arguments relied on by the applicant are as
follows:
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The directive which, according to its preamble, is based
on Articles 57(2), 66 and 100A of the EC Treaty has no
legal basis in Community law. The principle of limited               1. annul Commission Decision K(1998) 2556 of 29 July
specific authority has thus been infringed. Nor can the                  1998, concerning aids paid by the Land Niedersachsen
disputed directive be based on either Article 129 or                     to Georgsmarienhütte GmbH;
Article 235 of the EC Treaty. Even if Articles 57(2), 66
and 100A of the EC Treaty are to be considered as
appropriate and sufficient legal bases for the disputed              2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
directive, it was none the less adopted in breach of the
principle of subsidiarity established in the second
paragraph of Article 3B of the EC Treaty. In any event,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the directive infringes the principle of proportionality
established in the third paragraph of Article 3B of the EC
Treaty.
                                                                     The applicant, a medium-sized steel undertaking, belonged
                                                                     to the Klöckner steel group until the beginning of 1993,
The applicant further alleges infringement of the freedom            and was established following a management buy-out as
of movement of goods and services within the internal                part of composition proceedings opened in respect of that
market and in particular incompatibility with Articles 30            group. At that time, the applicant still owned a number of
et seq. and 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty.                             pieces of land that were not necessary for its business and
                                                                     were therefore to be sold. One piece of land (known as
                                                                     Westerkamp') had previously been used for many years
In addition, the applicant is of the opinion that the                by undertakings of the Klöckner steel group as a dumping
disputed directive infringes certain basic rights protected          ground for blast furnace wastes and converter steel dusts.