CELEX: C2003/239/38
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-251/03: Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH + Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the European Communities

4.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/19
Decision of the Oppo-         Partial admission of the oppo-              Pleas in law and main arguments
sition Division:              sition and allowance to proceed
                              to registration of the Community
                              trade mark for the following                The purpose of the present action is to challenge the legality
                              goods: cocoa, sugar and chewing             of the implied decision rejecting the complaint by the applicant
                              gum.                                        against her suspension from her duties following her removal
                                                                          from the post of Accounting Officer and Budget Execution
                                                                          Director in Directorate General Budget, and her transfer to the
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
Appeal:                       Société des Produits Nestlé.                position of Principal Adviser in Directorate General Personnel
                                                                          and Administration, as the result of a disciplinary procedure.
Pleas in law:                 According to the applicant there
                              is no likelihood of confusion               This application is based on the following elements:
                              between the two marks and it
                              refers in this respect to a judgment        —     Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulation, through
                              of the Superior Court of justice in               the adoption of a measure resulting in the applicant’s
                              Madrid that allegedly stated that                 suspension without adequate grounds therefore, in the
                              Menorquina was not entitled to                    absence of any breach of Articles 12, 21 or 60 of the
                              oppose the use of the word mark                   Staff Regulation.
                              ‘POLO’ in Spain.
                                                                          —     Breach of Article 88 of the Staff Regulation, in the
                                                                                absence of any serious misconduct that may justify the
                                                                                urgent need to exclude her from the working place.
                                                                          —     Breach of the principle of proportionality, in as much as
                                                                                the measure in question is to be qualified as dispro-
                                                                                portionnal in relation to the allegations made against her.
                                                                          —     Breach of the rights of defence, through the adoption of
Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen                               a suspension measure without ensuring the possibility of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            the applicant being heard and protecting her rights.
                       (Case T-250/03)
                       (2003/C 239/37)
                                                                          Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH
                  (Language of the case: English)                         + Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the
                                                                                              European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-251/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 239/38)
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by I. Forrester, QC.                                         (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting              European Communities on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht
      the Applicant’s appeal against her suspension from her              GmbH + Co.KG, Aulendorf, Germany, AniMedica GmbH,
      duties;                                                             Senden-Bösensell, Germany, Ceva Tiergesundheit GmbH, Düs-
                                                                          seldorf, Germany, Fatro S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, Laboratorios
—     award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money                  Syva S.A., León, Spain, Laboratorios Virbac S.A., Barcelona,
      to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such           Spain, Química Farmacéutica Bayer S.A., Barcelona, Spain,
      other rate as may be fixed by the Court;                            Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda, Lisboa,
                                                                          Portugal, Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias S.A., Madrid,
                                                                          Spain, Virbac S.A., Carros, France, represented by D. Wael-
—     award her the costs of the present action.                          broeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —      The procedure provided for in Article 35 of Directive
                                                                               2001/82 can only affect and have an impact on the
                                                                               national marketing authorisation directly concerned by
—     annul the contested Decision requesting the Member                       it.
      States to suspend marketing authorizations for products
      containing benzathine penicillin under the referral pro-          —      In the present case there should not be ‘Community
      cedure of Article 35 of Directive 2001/82;                               interest’ justifying a referral.
—     alternatively declare the contested Decision non-existant;        (1 ) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and Council of
                                                                             6 November 2001, on the Community code relating to veterinary
                                                                             national products (OJ L 311, of 28 November 2001, p. 1),
                                                                             which consolidates and replaces Council Directive 81/851/EEC of
—     order the Defendant to bear the costs.                                 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                             Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 317
                                                                             of 6 November 1981, p. 1, and the subsequent modifications).
                                                                        (2 ) OJ C 109, of 4.5.2002, p. 51.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in the present case are all companies holding            Action brought on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals
national marketing authorisations issued by national com-               Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the Commission of
petent authorities for a veterinary medicinal product contain-                              the European Communities
ing the pharmacologically active substance ‘bezathine penicil-
lin’. That substance is a general antibiotic used in veterinary                                    (Case T-253/03)
injectable medicinal products for food producing animals.
                                                                                                   (2003/C 239/39)
The present application has been lodged against the Decision                                 (Language of the case: English)
of the Commission of 22 April 2003, ordering a suspension of
the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products
containing the substance benzathine penicillin on the basis of
Article 35 of Directive 2001/82/EC (1) (former Article 20 of            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Directive 81/851) in the framework of a so-called ‘Community            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
interest referral procedure’ initiated by the Irish authorities.        European Communities on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel
The applicants in the present case introduced an action                 Chemicals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), and Akcros Chemi-
for annulment against the Decision introducing the referral             cals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), represented by C. Swaak
procedure on 25 January 2002. The application, which is still           and R. Mollica, lawyers.
pending, was registered under Roll No T-19/02 ( 2).
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      review, under Article 230 EC, the legality of the Rejection
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:                   Decision;
                                                                        —      annul, under Article 231 EC, the Rejection Decision;
—     The Commission cannot oblige the Member States to
      suspend national marketing authorisations of products             —      order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the
      containing benzathine penicillin under the procedure                     present proceedings.
      contained in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 as this
      Article does not provide the Commission with the power
      to adopt decisions harmonising national marketing auth-
      orisations.                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Even if one were to accept that the procedure contained           In February 2003, representatives of the Commission perfor-
      in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 could lead to a binding        med an investigation on the basis of Article 14(3) of Regulation
      decision of the Commission, such procedure would at               17/62 with regard to the applicants in Eccles, Manchester. In
      most apply to veterinary medicinal products authorised            the course of the investigation, the Commission reviewed,
      under the mutual recognition procedure.                           took copies of and seized several documents ( 1).