CELEX: C2002/261/35
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-254/02: Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Commission of the European Communities

C 261/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.10.2002
Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                         claims that the Decision would erred in taking into account
Marine and Palace Pier Company against the Commission                    only the effect on competition that could arise from the
                of the European Communities                              operation of the heritage centre on the West Pier. Instead, the
                                                                         Decision should also take into account the effect on compe-
                                                                         tition and trade that could arise from the management and use
                        (Case T-252/02)                                  of the new shore end commercial buildings and the commercial
                                                                         space on the West Pier. According to the applicant, these new
                                                                         commercial developments would not take place without the
                        (2002/C 261/34)                                  funded restoration of the West Pier.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in
                                                                         concluding that if there was aid, it was compatible with the
                                                                         common market under Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                According to the applicant, the Commission failed to weigh
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               up the benefits of any cultural or heritage objective against the
European Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                   much larger purely commercial aspects. Furthermore, it failed
Marine and Palace Pier Company, Jarrow, Tyne and Wear                    to take into account the potential disadvantages for the
(United Kingdom), represented by C. Vajda QC and T. Usher,               applicant, Palace Pier, which is also an English Heritage listed
Solicitor.                                                               building, and relies solely on its commercial viability.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of 9 April 2002 both in respect of the
      conclusions under Article 87(1) and Article 87(3)(d) of
      the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Com-
                                                                                    mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case T-254/02)
The applicant operates the Brighton Palace Pier. In the                                          (2002/C 261/35)
contested Decision, the Commission held that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier did not involve state aid and
declared, in the alternative, any aid to be compatible with the                            (Language of the case: French)
common market. The applicant points out that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier involves the participation of a private
partner, St. Modwen. This partner will, after the restoration,
exploit the pier and adjacent lands commercially. This would
create a direct competitor for the applicant since the West Pier,
which is situated only 1,2 kilometres away from the Palace               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pier, would then offer the same services and attractions as the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant currently offers.                                              European Communities on 23 August 2002 by L, residing in
                                                                         Brussels, represented by Jean Van Rossum, lawyers.
The applicant submits that the Commission erred in conclud-
ing that the measures did not favour St. Modwen. According               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the applicant, the funding of the restoration gives St.
Modwen the opportunity to carry out a large commercial
development of a scale and in a locality which would not                 —     annul the decision of the Commission of 30 April 2002
otherwise be possible. This gives St. Modwen a competitive                     and the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of
advantage over the applicant.                                                  4 February 2002;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to compensate the applicant;
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission erred
in concluding that the measures in issue would have no effect
on competition and intra community trade. The applicant                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.10.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 261/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
The applicant contests, first, the Commission’s rejection of the         munity trade mark:
applicant’s request that it institute legal proceedings with
regard to the harassment complained of. Secondly, the appli-             The Community trade          Word mark ‘RUFFLES’ — Appli-
cant contests the implied decision not to recognise the illness          mark concerned:              cation No 000096875, for goods
suffered by the applicant, following such harassment, as an                                           in Classes 29 and 30 (food and
occupational disease.                                                                                 condiments)
                                                                         Proprietor of the right to   Convent Knabber-Gebäck GmbH.
In support of the action in respect of the first act, the applicant      the trade mark or sign
alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.          asserted by way of oppo-
In the applicant’s view, the reasons for the decision are                sition in the opposition
inconsistent.                                                            proceedings:
                                                                         Trade mark or sign           German mark ‘RIFFELS’ registered
Moreover, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(1)            asserted by way of oppo-     for goods in Class 29 (potato
and (2) of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission refuses          sition in the opposition     chips)
to take legal action and in that it refuses to grant the applicant       proceedings:
access to information which it has available to it regarding the
harassing conduct.                                                       Decision of the Oppo-        Application upheld as regards
                                                                         sition Division:             ‘dried vegetables’ (Class 29) and
                                                                                                      ‘fine pastry and confectionery’
In support of the action in respect of the second act, the                                            (Class 30). Application dismissed
applicant alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff                                          as regards ‘cereal preparations’
Regulations. The applicant claims not to have received any                                            (Class 30).
reasons for the implied rejection of the request submitted.
                                                                         Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                         Appeal:
                                                                         Grounds of claim:            Breach of the principles that the
                                                                                                      rights of the defence are to be
                                                                                                      observed and that reasons must
                                                                                                      be provided, in accordance with
                                                                                                      Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation
Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc.                                                    No 40/94, and of co-existence
against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market                                               and comparability between Com-
              (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                        munity trade marks and national
                                                                                                      trade marks
                        (Case T-269/02)
                        (2002/C 261/36)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di
                                                                         Napoli against Commission of the European Communities
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                                       (Case T-272/02)
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc., whose registered office is                                     (2002/C 261/37)
in New York (United States of America), represented by
Enrique Armijo Chávarri.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul decision No 114/2000-1 of the OHIM of 10 June                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      2002;                                                              European Communities on 4 September 2002 by the Munici-
                                                                         pality of Naples, represented by Massimo Merola, Claudio
—     order OHIM to pay the costs.                                       Tesauro, Giuseppe Tarallo and Edoardo Barone, lawyers.