CELEX: C2004/021/82
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-377/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

24.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 21/39
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal as inad-            Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal:                       missible as a result of a failure
                              to comply with the time-limit
                              prescribed for lodging appeals.
                                                                          Competition notice CONSEIL/A/270 stated that candidates
                                                                          were required to have a perfect command of one of the
Pleas in law:                 —     infringement of Article 6 of          official languages of the European Communities, a very good
                                    the European Convention on            knowledge of either English or French and an adequate
                                    Human Rights in that notifi-          knowledge of the other of those two languages. However,
                                    cation by fax does not satisfy        candidates choosing French or English as the language of
                                    the requirement for security          which they had a perfect command were required to show
                                    of notification in proceed-           evidence of a very good knowledge of the other of those two
                                    ings.                                 languages and also an adequate knowledge of a third official
                                                                          language. By his first plea, the applicant claims that this
                              —     in the alternative, infringe-         provision discriminates between, on the one hand, anglophone
                                    ment of Rules 55, 61 and 65           and francophone candidates and, on the other, other candi-
                                    of Commission Regulation              dates. In that context, he relies on breach of the principle of
                                    No 2868/95 and of                     equal treatment and also of subparagraph f of the first
                                    Article 59 of Regulation              paragraph of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. By his second
                                    No 40/94.                             plea, the applicant claims that, at the third written test,
                                                                          candidates were asked to write a brief account of the role of
                                                                          the Secretariat General of the Council, in breach of the
                                                                          competition notice, which provided for an account of the
                                                                          activities of the Council. The third plea refers to the Council’s
                                                                          refusal to grant the applicant access to the corrected copy of
                                                                          his third written test. The applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                          Article 255(1) EC and also breach of the obligation to state
                                                                          reasons and of the principles of good management and good
                                                                          administration.
Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hen-
       drickx against Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-376/03)
                         (2004/C 21/81)
                                                                          Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Tech-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         nologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                                  Internal Market
                                                                                                  (Case T-377/03)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hendrickx,                                               (2004/C 21/82)
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                           (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decisions of the Selection Board for competition          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      CONSEIL/A/270 to award him an eliminatory mark for                  European Communities on 17 November 2003 by ATI
      written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests;            Technologies Inc., established in Thornhill (Canada), represen-
                                                                          ted by Chantal Silvia Moreau, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Council to pay the applicant symbolic damages
      of one euro for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                          Asociación de Técnicos de Informatica — ATI was also a party
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision given by the Fourth Board of Appeal             —     join this action to Case T-314/03 for the purposes of the
      of the defendant on 16 July 2003 in Case R 339/2002-4;                   written procedure and the oral procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               30 September 2003 requiring Musée Grevin to reimburse
                                                                               the sums allegedly wrongly paid to it;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.
Applicant for Com-           ATI Technologies Inc.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark         Word mark ‘ATI’ — Application
sought:                      No 362 863 lodged in respect of             Pleas in law and main arguments
                             goods and services in Class 9
                             (electronic components etc.).
Proprietor of mark or        Asociación de Técnicos            de        The applicant received grants from the Commission within the
sign cited in the oppo-      Informatica — ATI.                          framework of a project to create a joint venture with a Polish
sition proceedings:                                                      undertaking. By decision of 8 July 2003, the Commission
                                                                         sought repayment of the sums paid to the applicant.
Mark or sign cited in        Graphic mark ‘ati’ registered in
opposition:                  respect of services in Class 42.
                                                                         The applicant brought proceedings challenging that decision
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the application for              (Case T-314/03, OJ 2003 C 275, p. 49). At the same time, the
sition Division:             registration.                               applicant submitted documents to the Commission fully
                                                                         substantiating the proper use of the Community funds, and
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal.                    asked it to reconsider its decision. In the decision contested in
Appeal:                                                                  this case, the Commission confirmed its decision of 8 July
                                                                         2003.
Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                             lihood of confusion).
                                                                         In support of its application, the applicant alleges, first, a
                                                                         breach of Regulation No 1 (1), in that the contested decision
                                                                         was written in English and not in French. It also alleges a
                                                                         failure to respect the limitation period of four years laid down
                                                                         in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The
                                                                         applicant alleges moreover a breach of the principle of
                                                                         collegiate responsibility and that the person who signed the
                                                                         contested decision lacked competence.
Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Musée Grevin
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant also alleges that the decision lacks any legal
                        (Case T-378/03)                                  basis, contains a manifest error of assessment, fails to satisfy
                                                                         the obligation to state reasons and, lastly, is in breach of the
                                                                         principle of proportionality.
                         (2004/C 21/83)
                  (Language of the case: French)                         (1) Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by
                                                                             the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition
                                                                             1952-1958, p. 59).
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
                                                                             1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    interests (OJ 1995 L 312, pp. 1-4).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 November 2003 by Musée
Grevin, having its registered office in Paris, represented by
Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, lawyers.