CELEX: C2001/227/60
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-124/01: Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio against the Commission of the European Communities

11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/31
The applicant considers that the Commission’s inaction is                                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
contrary to the Treaty and to Regulation No 17, since it is                                                of Regulation No 40/94;
allowing an infringement of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to                                             — Failure to take account of the
continue, although it has all the evidence available to adopt                                              services actually being offered;
the necessary measures.
                                                                                                       — Failure to take account of the
                                                                                                           existing registrations of the
                                                                                                           sign in Germany and France.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-122/01)
                                                                         Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 227/59)
                                                                                                  (Case T-124/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 227/60)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                      (Language of the case: French)
4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc., Minnesota (U.S.A.),
represented by Sabine Rojahn, Rechtsanwältin, with an address            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for service in Luxembourg.                                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              domiciled in London, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                         Laure Levi and Dugois Dominique, Lawyers.
—     set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      21 March 2001 in Case R 44/2000-3;
                                                                         —     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 5 April 2000
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.                 refusing to apply the United Kingdom weighting to the
                                                                               applicant’s pension as from 8 May 1999 and, so far as
                                                                               necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of
                                                                               23 February 2001 dismissing the applicant’s claim of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                18 July 2000;
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to apply the United Kingdom
Trade mark for which           The pictorial mark ‘BEST BUY’ —                 weighting with retroactive effect from 8 May 1999;
Community registration         Application No 001166164
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay damage provisionally assessed
sought:
                                                                               ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euros and to pay interest at
                                                                               8 % per annum on the remainder of the pension owed as
Goods or services:             Services in Classes 35, 37 and 42               from 8 May 1999;
                               (including management con-
                               sultancy, installation of car stereo      —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               systems and products for the pri-
                               vate office, and specialist advice
                               on the fitting-out of retail busi-
                               nesses)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision disputed before       Refusal of registration by the            The applicant claims infringement of Article 82 of the Staff
the Board of Appeal:           examiner                                  Regulations. The applicant claims that the Commission did
                                                                         not properly evaluate the documentation he provided to prove
Pleas in law:                  — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)         his change of country of residence. The Commission should,
                                   of Regulation No 40/94 (1);           inter alia, have taken into consideration the particular situation
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
of the applicant, who lives with his partner and was therefore            the fact that the Community market had failed to strengthen
unable to provide a lease or title deeds or telephone, gas or             or even maintain, its position on the market, and the fact that
electricity bills in his own name. The applicant further claims           Community steel producers had to bear negative effects, in the
infringement of the principle of proper administration, good              form of additional costs brought by the measures in particular,
management and the duty to have regard to the welfare of                  which cumulated while those measures were in force.
officials.
                                                                          In this respect the applicant companies claim that a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment has occurred. They dwell particularly on
                                                                          the fact that the Commission could not call into question the
                                                                          position adopted by the Council in 1993/1994 on Community
                                                                          interest.
Action brought on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages, Péchiney                  In support of their claims, they also submit that the following
Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys A.B. and Ferroatlantica                 provisions of the basic regulation on anti-dumping have been
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      infringed:
                          (Case T-132/01)                                 —     Article 11(2) and Article 2 in so far as those provisions
                                                                                prohibit the taking into account of a period prior to the
                          (2001/C 227/61)                                       measures in force which are under review;
                                                                          —     Article 21(2) and (5) in that the Commission took into
                                                                                account information submitted by users beyond the time
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                limit set by the notice of initiation of the review
                                                                                proceedings;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     Article 21(5), in considering that the information submit-
European Communities on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages,                           ted by the users was representative. In that respect it can
whose registered office is in Brussels, Péchiney Electrométallur-               be noted that the users who submitted information
gie, whose registered office is in Courbevoie (France) Vargon                   represented 10 % of Community consumption;
Alloys A.B., whose registered office is in Vargön (Sweden) and
                                                                          —     Article 21(7) in so far as the Commission took into
Ferroatlantica, whose registered office is in Madrid, represented
                                                                                account information submitted by users which was
by D Voillemot and Olivier Prost, Lawyers.
                                                                                unsubstantiated by actual evidence;
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               —     Article 6(6) as well as infringement of the right to a fair
—     annul the sole article of Commission Decision of 21 Feb-                  hearing by refusing to organise a meeting with the users
      ruary 2001 terminating the anti-dumping procedure                         to allow for exchange of views.
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil,
      the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia,
      Ukraine and Venezuela, with regard to those imports
      originating in the People’s Republic of China, Russia,
      Ukraine and Kazakhstan;
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-137/99 and
                                                                                                      T-18/00 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (2001/C 227/62)
Since the applicant companies in the present case are part of
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
the Community ferro-silicon industry, they object to the
Commission’s decision to terminate the anti-dumping pro-
cedure with regard to the importation of ferro-silicon originat-          By order of 3 April 2001, the President of the Court of First
ing in the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Ukraine. That Decision is based on the consideration that the             removal of the name of Athanasia Chrissanthaki from the list
maintenance of measures previously adopted against those                  of applicants in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00 Natalia
four countries would ‘clearly’ be contrary to the interests of            Martinez Páramo and Others v Commission of the European
the Community. To arrive at this conclusion, the defendant                Communities.
claims to have taken into account the period in which those
measures had been in place, assumed to have begun in 1987,                (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99 and C 79 of 18.3.00.