CELEX: C2003/200/51
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-212/03: Action brought on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group plc against the Commission of the European Communities

C 200/28              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  damage either the sum of [CONFIDENTIAL] or such
                                                                                 amount as the Court in its discretion might order;
Applicant for Community          The applicant
trade mark:
                                                                           —     order that interest is payable in respect of the compensa-
                                                                                 tion awarded from the date of judgment establishing the
                                                                                 obligation to make good the damage in this case at the
Community       trade   mark     Figurative mark ‘FABER’ Appli-                  rate of 8 % per annum or such other rate as the Court in
sought:                          cation No 676.353 sought for                    its discretion may order;
                                 products 1, 2 and 3 (chemicals
                                 and industrial adhesives)
                                                                           —     order that the costs of this application should be paid by
                                                                                 the Commission.
Proprietor of mark or sign       Industrias    Químicas      NABER
cited in the opposition pro-     S.A.
ceedings:
Mark or sign cited in op-        Spanish trade marks ‘NABER’
position:                        (registration     Nos      801.202,       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                 2.072.120,               2.072.121,
                                 2.072.122) for products in
                                 classes 1, 2 and 3
                                                                           The applicant, formerly know as Airtours plc, seeks compensa-
                                                                           tion from the Commission by way of damages for harm
                                                                           caused to it by the decision of the Commission in Case
                                                                           No IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice (1), declaring the
Decision of the Opposition       Rejection of the opposition               concentration between the applicant and First Choice incom-
Division:                                                                  patible with the common market.
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal                   The applicant contends that the conduct of the Commission in
Appeal:                                                                    carrying out its review of the proposed acquisition of First
                                                                           Choice by Airtours breaches rules of law which are intended
                                                                           to confer rights on individuals. The applicant claims more in
                                                                           particular that the Commission infringed Article 2 of Council
                                                                           Regulation 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between
Grounds of the application:      Wrongful        application      of
                                                                           undertakings (2) and the general principles of sound adminis-
                                 Article 8(1)(b) of (EC) Regula-
                                                                           tration, care and diligence.
                                 tion No 40/94 (risk of confu-
                                 sion)
                                                                           The applicant submits that in committing these breaches the
                                                                           Commission manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its
                                                                           discretion, and that these breaches were sufficiently serious to
                                                                           warrant reparation under Article 288 EC Treaty.
Action brought on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group plc
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-212/03)                                   The applicant refers in this respect to the judgment in Case
                                                                           T-342/99, Airtours/Commission (3), annulling the Decision of
                         (2003/C 200/51)                                   the Commission in Case No IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
                                                                           Choice. The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           made due allowance for the margin of appreciation permitted
                                                                           to the Commission, but nonetheless found that the decision
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    was vitiated by a series of manifest errors of assessment
                                                                           regarding the creation of a dominant position. Such a manifest
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           error established in annulment proceedings equates according
European Communities on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group
                                                                           to the applicant, to a manifest disregard for the limits of
plc, Manchester, United Kingdom, represented by D. Pannick,
                                                                           discretion and constitutes a sufficiently serious breach.
QC, Mr A. Lewis, Barrister, Mr M. Nicholson and Ms S. Cardell,
Solicitors.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant also submits that the fact that the Commission
—     order that the Commission should pay to the applicant                enjoys a margin of discretion does not absolve it from the
      under Article 288(2) EC Treaty as compensation for                   obligation to observe the principles of sound administration.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/29
As a result of these breaches, the applicant claims to have                 Action brought on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A. against
suffered loss. This loss consists firstly of the profits generated          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
by First Choice as reported in its audited accounts and that                                             (OHIM)
would have accrued to the applicant if the acquisition had not
been prohibited by the Commission. Secondly, the applicant
                                                                                                     (Case T-215/03)
claims the loss of synergy costs savings that would have been
obtained in consequence of the merger and, thirdly, the costs of
the abortive bid for First Choice which were wasted as a result                                      (2003/C 200/53)
of the Decision of the Commission.
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1
( ) 2000/276/EC: Commission Decision of 22 September 1999
    declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
    market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
    Choice) (notified under document number C(1999) 3022) (Text             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
    with EEA relevance) (OJ L 93 of 2000, p. 1).                            Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on              of the European Communities on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA,
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (text repub-         S.A., with offices in Madrid, represented by E. Armijo Chávarri.
    lished in OJ L 257 of 1990, p. 13).
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002, Airtours/
    Commission, T-342/99, ECR II-2585.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                  no. R 1127/2000-3 of 1 April 2003 on the ground that
                                                                                  it is inconsistent with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/
                                                                                  94;
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Francesco Contesso                        —     in the alternative, annul the contested decision on the
      against Commission of the European Communities                              ground that it prejudices SIGLA's rights of defence and
                                                                                  the principle underlying Article 74 of Regulation No 40/
                           (Case T-213/03)                                        94; and
                           (2003/C 200/52)                                  —     order OHIM to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Francesco                           Applicant for Community          ELLENI HOLDING BV
Contesso, residing in Paris, represented by Sebastien Orlandi,              trade mark:
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘VIPS’ Application
                                                                            sought:                          No 459.875 sought for pro-
—      annul the decision drawing up the definitive staff report                                             ducts and services within
       for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;                                                      classes 9, 35 and 42 and, sub-
                                                                                                             sequently, only for services
—      order the Commission to pay the applicant a token one                                                 within class 42 (computer pro-
       euro for compensation for the non-material damage                                                     gramming services for hotels,
       sustained;                                                                                            restaurants and cafes)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or sign       The applicant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             cited in the opposition pro-
                                                                            ceedings:
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the assessor's prior duty to consult senior assessors before
finalising the staff report, infringement of the assessor's duty to
require them to initial each of the pages and to sign the                   Mark or sign cited in op-        Spanish word mark ‘VIPS’ (re-
definitive staff report, infringement of the duty to give reasons,          position:                        gistration No 551.436) for pro-
in so far as the appeal assessor did not state why he did not                                                ducts of class 42 (supplying
take account of the opinions of the hierarchical superiors                                                   prepared food and drink for
consulted.                                                                                                   consumption, restaurants, ser-
                                                                                                             vice stations, canteens, bars and
                                                                                                             cafeterias and hotel services)