CELEX: C2002/109/93
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-331/01: Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Huntstown Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

C 109/46                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service              No 01/2000 and that the defendant is not empowered
in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union (Agents:                    unilaterally to introduce amendments to the terms and con-
T. Blanchet and G. Ramos Ruano) — application for annulment                ditions of employment or Staff Rules into the contracts
of the Council’s decision of 13 August 1996 rejecting the                  between the applicants and itself, nor to enforce such amend-
applicant’s request for a review of his classification in grade —          ments, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:                  composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
B. Vesterdorf, President; N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;               Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 11 December
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 December 2001, the                 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                        1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                           2.   The parties shall bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.97.
                                                                           (1) OJ 2001 C 108.
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 11 December 2001
in Case T-20/01 Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Others v
                    European Central Bank (1)                              Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Huntstown
                                                                           Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
(Amendment of the Staff Rules of the European Central
      Bank — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                                    (Case T-331/01)
                          (2002/C 109/92)
                                                                                                    (2002/C 109/93)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-20/01, Maria Concetta Cerafogli, residing in Frank-
furt (Federal Republic of Germany), Monika Esch-Leonhardt,
residing in Frankfurt, Marco Luigi Fassetta, residing in Wiesba-
den (Federal Republic of Germany), Tillmann Frommhold,
residing in Karben (Federal Republic of Germany), Johannes                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Priesemann, residing in Frankfurt and Marc van de Velde,                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
residing in Usingen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented             European Communities on 18 December 2001 by Huntstown
by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers, with                 Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited,
an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the                     represented by Mr James O’Reilly, SC and Mr Charles A Kelly,
Organisation of Employees in European and International                    Solicitor of Douglas Kelly & Son, Swinford (Ireland).
Institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany (IPSO),
represented by B. Karthaus, M. Roth and C. Roth, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Central Bank (Agents: C. Ziliolo, M. López Torres and B. Wäg-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
enbaur) — application for the annulment and/or a declaration
of inapplicability of Articles 7.2.0 and 8.1.0 of the Staff Rules,
Administrative Circular 01/2000 concerning Travel Expenses,                —    annul the second indent of Part 6 of the Commission’s
the gateway clause inserted into the applicants’ employment                     Decision no C(2001)2967 of 5 October 2001 concerning
contracts and the decision of the President of the ECB of                       State Aid NN 86/2001 — AER RIANTA — IRELAND;
27 November 2000 rejecting the applicants’ complaint, and
for a declaration that the ECB was required to consult the
personnel committee before adopting Administrative Circular                —    order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 109/47
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         European Communities on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation
                                                                        AG, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner, Bolte &
                                                                        Partner, Munich (Germany).
The applicants are both part of the Omega group, which has a
substantial interest in aviation and the provision of such
services both within and without the European Community.                A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
The Omega group has the intention of constructing and                   was Jesmar S.A.
operating a second terminal at Dublin airport which will
provide direct competition to the present terminal operated by
Aer Rianta, the Irish state-owned company that owns and
operates Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports.                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
By letter dated 4 December 1998, the applicants lodged a                      17 October 2001 in Case R 1123/2000-1 relating to
complaint with the Commission concerning alleged State aid                    Opposition Proceedings no. B 68587 and Community
in favour of Aer Rianta. It was alleged that aid had been                     trade mark application no. 50252 ‘Colette Zapf Creation’
granted, in particular, by a transfer of assets from the Minister
of Finance to Aer Rianta at a significant undervalue. On
5 October 2001, the Commission took a decision on the
complaint. In the second indent of Part 6 of this decision, the
Commission stated that the contested transfer of assets was             Pleas in law and main arguments
not a grant of aid.
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-        Zapf Creation AG
The applicants challenge the legality of this decision on three         munity trade mark:
grounds:
                                                                        The Community trade           The figurative mark ‘Colette Zapf
                                                                        mark concerned:               Creation’ for certain goods in
—     the Commission should have proceeded to open the                                                class 28
      formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 4(4)
      of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999;
                                                                        Proprietor of the right to    Jesmar S.A.
                                                                        the trade mark or sign
—     the Commission misdirected itself as a matter of law in           asserted by way of oppo-
      determining that the transfer of assets at an undervalue          sition in the opposition
      did not constitute State aid within the meaning of                proceedings:
      Article 87(1) EC Treaty;
                                                                        Trade mark or sign            The Spanish word mark ‘Colette’
—     the Commission gave an inadequate statement of reasons            asserted by way of oppo-      for certain goods in class 28
      contrary to the requirements of Article 253 EC Treaty.            sition in the opposition
                                                                        proceedings:
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition by
                                                                        sition Division:              Jesmar S.A.
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Admission of the appeal lodged
                                                                        Appeal:                       by Jesmar S.A.
Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    Grounds of claim:             Violation of Article 43, section 2,
                             Market                                                                   of Regulation 40/94 (1) since there
                                                                                                      was no satisfactory proof of the
                                                                                                      genuine use of the opposing
                          (Case T-7/02)                                                               trademark and violation of
                                                                                                      Article 8, Section 1 b) of Regu-
                                                                                                      lation 40/94 since there is no
                        (2002/C 109/94)                                                               danger of confusion.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the