CELEX: C2003/158/48
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-140/03: Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187 against the Commission of the European Communities

C 158/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
According to the applicant, the appointing authority commit-              The applicants submit that the defendants made a manifest
ted a manifest error of assessment in selecting a candidate who           error of assessment, misused their powers and violated the
did not satisfy the conditions set out in the notice of vacancy.          legitimate expectations of European consumers.
The appointment of that candidate should for that reason be
set aside. The applicant also asserts that there has been an
infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the               The applicants maintain that the defendants made a manifest
rules governing the deliberations of the selection board. She             error of assessment in their management of the risks associated
claims that certain members of the selection board were                   with the BSE epidemic by not recommending a forward
not adequately qualified and/or lacked the impartiality and               scientific evaluation of the risk of BSE developing BSE in the
objectivity necessary for sitting on such a board. Furthermore,           various geographical areas of the Union at the time of
the staff reports of the applicant and of the candidate appointed         identification of the causes of the epidemic and of adoption of
evaluate their respective activities and profiles according to            the first protective measures in the United Kingdom. That
different criteria and provisions of the Staff Regulations. In            manifest error of assessment is also evidenced by the failure of
conclusion, the applicant submits that the appointing authority           the defendants to call for a retrospective study to shed light on
infringed the principle of equality as between men and women.             the cause of the infections subsequently recorded in France.
She argues that she was more meritorious than the candidate
who was appointed. Moreover, in the event that her merits
should be deemed to have been no more than equivalent to                  In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
those of that candidate, priority ought to have been given to             defendants’ conduct in this case constitutes a misuse of powers
the applicant by reason of the fact that she is a woman.                  inasmuch as it was aimed only at protecting in an ill-considered
                                                                          manner the interests of the market and of the beef sector.
                                                                          According to the applicants, the defendants’ action consisted
                                                                          in dissuading the Member States from adopting unilateral
                                                                          protective measures.
Action brought on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others
                                                                          The applicants further maintain that the defendants’ internal
against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          disorganisation led their staff to underestimate the risks of BSE
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          developing and by that very fact constitutes a serious breach
                                                                          of the legitimate expectations of European consumers.
                          (Case T-138/03)
                         (2003/C 158/47)                                  The applicants draw attention to the abnormal and special
                                                                          nature of the damage suffered by them as a result of the non-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         natural cause of BSE and of the inapplicability of the European
                                                                          system of producers’ liability for defective products to the case
                                                                          in point.
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others, represented by François
Honnorat, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187 against
                                                                                 the Commission of the European Communities
—     order compensation for the non-material or material
      damage suffered by them as a consequence of the
      infection of their close relatives with BSE;                                                 (Case T-140/03)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2003/C 158/48)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                               (Language of the case: English)
The applicants all live in France and are victims, either
indirectly or as persons entitled under or through persons who
have died in France, of a ‘variant’ form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
disease. By this action, the applicants are lodging a claim for           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
damages to compensate for the material or non-material                    European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187,
damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the death of                Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr A. Sutton and Mr
persons infected with BSE.                                                J. Killick, Barristers.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
—     annul the Contested Decision in whole or in part,                   sition proceedings:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of this Case and              Mark or sign cited in         Word mark ‘ARTEX’ registered in
      of Case T-276/02.                                                   opposition:                   France, Portugal and the Benelux
                                                                                                        for goods in Class 5
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition upheld
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
The applicant in the present case is the same association as in
                                                                          Appeal:                       Opposition Division and dis-
case T-276/02, Forum against Commission (1). The applicant
                                                                                                        missal of the appeal
challenges the final decision relating to the same Belgian State
Aid measure which was, as far as the decision to open the                 Pleas in law:                 Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
procedure as foreseen by Article 88(2) of the Treaty was                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
involved, the object of that case. The grounds and main                                                 lihood of confusion)
arguments are those submitted in that aforementioned case.
( 1) OJEC C 289, 23.11.02, p. 28.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas
                                                                          del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
Action brought on 2 May 2003 by Biofarma against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                            (Case T-158/03)
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                  (2003/C 158/50)
                        (Case T-154/03)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
                        (2003/C 158/49)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Quí-
                                                                          micas del Vallés, S.A., whose registered office is in Mollet del
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Vallés (Barcelona, Spain), represented by Cani Fernández
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Vicién, Paloma González-Espejo and Julio Sabater Marotias,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                lawyers.
2 May 2003 by Biofarma, represented by Antonia Ruiz López
and Víctor Gil Vega, lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                                2003,
—     annul the decision of the OHIM (Third Board of Appeal)
      of 5 February 2003 and declare that there is a likelihood           —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs,
      of confusion between the trade marks ARTEX and                            including those incurred for the purposes of making an
      ALREX, which designate similar goods.                                     application for interim relief.
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          This action is directed against Commission Decision 2003/
                                                                          308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of
Applicant for Com-             Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals              metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
munity trade mark:             Inc.                                       withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products
                                                                          containing this active substance (1).
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘ALREX’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 789461 for goods in
                               Class 5 (ophthalmological prod-            In support of its claims, the applicant company relies on the
                               ucts)                                      following pleas in law and main arguments: