CELEX: C2001/317/53
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-174/01: Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 317/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.11.2001
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 6 July 2001                                 —     Annul the contested act;
in Case T-375/00 Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora
                                                                          —     Declare her to be entitled to obtain a survivor’s pension;
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Replacement staff — Members of the auxiliary                 —     Set the amount of that pension at 200 000 BEF a month;
staff — Claim to classification as a member of the temporary
staff of the European Communities — Action in part lacking                —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
           in any legal basis and in part inadmissible)
                          (2001/C 317/51)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-375/00: Danielle Dubigh, a member of the auxiliary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                      The applicant, divorced from a former member of the Court
residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, also a member                 of Justice, now deceased, is challenging the defendant’s refusal
of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European                  to grant her a survivor’s pension. That decision is based on the
Communities, residing in Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented               alleged absence of any maintenance agreement concluded after
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for                 the divorce was granted and on the fact that a survivor’s
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                 pension is conditional upon a right to maintenance.
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decisions
of 12 January 2000 rejecting the applicants’ requests of                  In support of her claims, the applicant maintains that the
24 September 1999 for regularisation of their administrative              defendant, having regard to the circumstances of the case, was
situation by recognising them as members of the temporary                 not entitled to consider that the two sworn declarations she
staff of the European Communities — the Court of First                    produced in order to establish the existence and amount of the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-               maintenance agreement with her ex-husband were insufficient.
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has made an order on 6 July 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed.
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                 Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                                   (Case T-174/01)
Action brought on 26 July 2001 by M against the Court
            of Justice of the European Communities                                                 (2001/C 317/53)
                          (Case T-172/01)                                 (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                          (2001/C 317/52)                                                            made: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance                30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn of Makati, Metro
of the European Communities on 26 July 2001 by M,                         Manila (Philippines), represented by Dr Siegfried Jackermeier,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Harisios Tagaras,                 with an address for service in Luxembourg. Further party
lawyers.                                                                  before the board of appeal: Redcats SA, Roubaix (France).
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/27
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:          Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Société des mines de
                                                                       Sacilor Lormines against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
—     Annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 25 April 2001 (Case R641/2000-3);
                                                                                                (Case T-175/01)
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                (2001/C 317/54)
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Applicant for the Com-        the applicant                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
munity mark:                                                           European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Sacilor Lormines,
                                                                       a mining company established at Puteaux (France), represented
                                                                       by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
Trade mark applied for:       ‘Silk Cocoon’ for goods in
                              Class 25 (clothing) — Application
                              No 551903                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Holder of the rights in       Redcats SA, Roubaix (France) (for-       —     annul the implied decision of 9 July 2001 by which the
the mark or sign relied       merly La Redoute SA)                           Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
on in the opposition                                                         notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
proceedings:
                                                                       —     annul the express decision of 10 July 2001 by which the
Opposed mark or sign:         the French and international word              Commission refused to comply with the letter of formal
                              mark ‘Cocoon’ for goods in                     notice communicated by the applicant on 9 May 2001;
                              Class 25
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Decision of the Oppo-         dismissal of the opposition
sition Division:
                                                                       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Decision of the Board of      annulment of the Decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division
                                                                       The applicant company in this case, which is also the applicant
                                                                       in Case T-107/01, (1) claims to have been subjected to excessive
Pleas in law relied on:       —    infringement of Article 43(2)       financial pressure by the French authorities in consequence of
                                   of     Council     Regulation       its commencement of the procedures for abandonment and
                                   No 40/94 (1);                       surrender of its mining licences. Because of the French
                                                                       administration’s wish to block it, the said surrender has been
                              —    lack of evidence of genuine         impossible to effect.
                                   use of the opposed marks;
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(2)
                                   of Commission Regulation            Faced with what it claims to be a refusal by the French
                                   No 2868/95 (2);                     administrative courts to protect the rights to which it is entitled
                                                                       under the ECSC Treaty, the applicant lodged a complaint with
                              —    infringement of Rule 22(1)          the Commission against the French State. Since that complaint
                                   of Commission Regulation            was rejected, it brought before the Court of First Instance an
                                   No 2686/95.                         action for failure to act and annulment, which was registered
                                                                       under No T-107/01, referred to above.
                                                                       On this occasion the applicant has addressed a further letter of
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the        formal notice to the Commission asking it to find that France
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(b) and 86
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December               ECSC. The Commission’s failure to respond has given rise to
    1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the          an implied decision of rejection which is open to challenge.
    Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).                        Further, on 19 July 2001, the applicant received a letter
                                                                       informing it that the Commission considered that Article 4(b)
                                                                       ECSC was not applicable to the case. Those are the decisions
                                                                       which are challenged.