CELEX: C2002/289/49
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-267/02: Action brought on 4 September 2002 by REWE-ZENTRAL AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

23.11.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/25
Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi                         Furthermore, Article 2 of the Regulation infringes fundamental
against the Council of the European Union and the                        principles of Community law, in particular the principles of
         Commission of the European Communities                          subsidiarity and proportionality and the respect for human
                                                                         rights.
                        (Case T-253/02)
                                                                         Member States are best placed to establish what measures are
                                                                         proportionate, and the total denial of all income and of all un-
                        (2002/C 289/48)                                  earned assistance to an individual is disproportionate. Article 2
                                                                         infringes human rights as it deprives an individual of access to
                                                                         his property and to the means of existence without providing
                  (Language of the case: English)                        any judicial remedy for that denial.
                                                                         Finally, the applicant submits that an essential procedural
                                                                         requirement has been infringed in the making of Article 2,
An action against the Council of the European Union and the              namely the requirement that the Council and the Commission
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           cannot be determined by individual Member States.
on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi Dublin (Ireland), rep-
resented by A. Lyon, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002
      of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive
      measures directed against certain persons and entities
      associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
      and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC)             Action brought on 4 September 2002 by REWE-ZEN-
      No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods                TRAL AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      and extending the freeze of funds and other financial
      resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan ( 1) and
      so much of Article 4 as relates to Article 2;                                                (Case T-267/02)
—     order the Council to pay the costs.                                                          (2002/C 289/49)
                                                                         (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                                  submitted: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is named in Annex I to the contested Regulation            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
as a person to whom Article 2 applies. Under this provision,             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
the applicant’s bank accounts have been frozen.                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         4 September 2002 by REWE-ZENTRAL AG, Köln (Germany),
                                                                         represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder,
The applicant submits that the provisions enabling the Security          Chr. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K Brandt, A. Franke, U. Ste-
Council of the United Nations to call upon its Members to                phani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, lawyers,
apply certain measures do not impose upon Members of the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg. Fritidsresor AB,
United Nations a duty to apply those measures. Members are               Stockholm (Sweden) was an additional party to the proceed-
free to choose how to respond to the Security Council’s call.            ings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further alleges that the Council was not com-
petent to make Article 2 of the Regulation in that Articles 60
and 301 EC did not confer on the Council the power to do so.             —     annul decision R 0888/2001 of the First Board of Appeal
The Council and the Commission misused their powers in that                    of OHIM of 1 July 2002;
Article 2 of the Regulation does not in fact pursue the
objectives of Articles 60 and 301 EC.                                    —     order the Office to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.11.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 5 September 2002 by National
                                                                          Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employ-
                                                                          ment Actions Limited (NRITEA) against the Commission
                                                                                          of the European Communities
Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                                                  (Case T-268/02)
Community trade mark           The word/figurative mark ‘atlasre-                                 (2002/C 289/50)
applied for:                   isen’ for goods in Classes 16,
                               36, 39, 41 and 42 (application
                               No 376210)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
Proprietor of the oppos-       Fritidsresor AB
ing trade mark or sign:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 5 September 2002 by National
Opposing trade mark or         The national Swedish word/figu-            Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employment
sign:                          rative mark ‘Atlas resor’ for ser-         Actions Limited (NRITEA), Newcastle Upon Tyne (United
                               vices in Class 39 (travel arrange-         Kingdom), represented by Ms Alison Tate, Solicitor.
                               ments and travel agencies)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Decision of Opposition         Dismissal of application for Com-
Division:                      munity trade mark for the services
                               ‘arranging transport services by           —     annul the decision of the Commission dated 23 May
                               water, land and air; arranging and               2002 and the plaintiff be given a detailed analysis of each
                               conducting travel by water, land                 and every dossier on which there is alleged to be a
                               and air; arranging and providing                 problem and be allowed sufficient time to respond;
                               travel for tourists; providing tick-
                               ets; providing food and drink and          —     in the alternative, annul the Decision of 23 May 2002
                               temporary accommodation in                       and a declaration be made that Article 23 of Regulation
                               hotels and restaurants’ and admis-               (EEC) 4253/88 should apply in this instance rather than
                               sion of the registration for the                 Article 24.
                               remaining goods and services
Decision of Board of           Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Appeal:                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law:                  —     Insufficient proof of genuine        The applicant is a voluntary organisation and a company
                                     use of the trade mark by the         limited by guarantee that assists and monitors the provision of
                                     opponent;                            training and development of underprivileged and deprived
                                                                          individuals in the United Kingdom. In this respect, the
                               —     Failure to comply with               applicant worked together with The MARI Group Limited, a
                                     Article 8(1) of Regulation           commercial company, specialised in training.
                                     No 40/94 (1). The applicant
                                     claims there is no likelihood
                                     of confusion between the             Both companies were subject to several detailed audits.
                                     trade marks.
                                                                          Following these audits and as a result of various irregularities
                                                                          found in the execution of the projects, the Commission decided
                                                                          to reduce the total assistance from the European Social Fund.
                                                                          This Decision is contested by the applicant in the present case.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Commission has infringed an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement in that it failed to provide the
                                                                          applicant with the opportunity to defend itself. According to
                                                                          the applicant, the Commission never provided directly to the
                                                                          applicant sufficient details of the allegations raised.