CELEX: C2001/173/67
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-84/01: Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association Contre l'Horaire d'Été against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

16.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/37
—     the contested decision is arbitrary and disproportionate,          Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association
      inasmuch as it does not analyse the possibility of                 Contre l’Horaire d’Été against the European Parliament
      excluding from its scope part of the Normas Forales                           and the Council of the European Union
      which it envisages.
—     the procedure laid down in the ‘Steel Aid Code’ was                                         (Case T-84/01)
      infringed, inter alia by exceeding the time-limit of
      3 months prescribed in Article 6(5) of Decision
      2496/96/ECSC.                                                                              (2001/C 173/67)
(1) OJ 2001 L 76, p. 57.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against                    Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2001 by
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  the Association Contre l’Horaire d’Été, established at Marly-le-
                                                                         Roi (France), represented by Corinne Lepage and François
                          (Case T-83/01)                                 Steinmetz, avocats.
                         (2001/C 173/66)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         —     annul Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   arrangements, published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA, a                         European Communities on 2 February 2001.
company established under the laws of Germany, represented
by Dominique Dupuis Latour of BPDAGI, Paris (France).
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the contested decision;                                  The applicant in the present case, an association formed to
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              draw the attention of the public to the alleged drawbacks
                                                                         arising from ‘changing the clocks’, seeks annulment of Direc-
                                                                         tive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements.
Trade mark concerned:         OSTEOCALCIUM — registration
                              n. 0000955138.                             In support of its claims, the applicant maintains:
Product or service:           ‘Pharmaceutical; veterinary and
                              sanitary preparations’ (class 5 of         —     that the wrong legal basis has been chosen (Article 95 of
                              the Nice Agreement).                             the Treaty, formerly Article 100a), inasmuch as the
                                                                               directive at issue does not satisfy the twofold condition
Challenged        Decision    Refusal of registration of the trade             of participating in the approximation of the provisions
before the Board of           mark in question, because of its                 laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Appeal:                       alleged descriptive character.                   Member States and having as its objective the establish-
Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Article 7 (1) c)                 ment and functioning of the internal market;
                              and b) of Regulation (EC)
                              No 40/94.                                  —     that the directive at issue will result in drawbacks and
                                                                               dangers to individuals, which should be seen as obstacles
                                                                               to the proper functioning of the internal market.