CELEX: C2003/239/13
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-218/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle against the Commission of the European Communities

4.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 239/9
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB against the                      Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle against
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                            the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-201/03)                                                            (Case T-218/03)
                        (2003/C 239/12)                                                            (2003/C 239/13)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Aneo AB, Märsta,                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Sweden, represented by Mrs R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer.                    European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cathal Boyle,
                                                                          Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                          Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal at                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      OHIM of 21 February 2003 in case R 883/2001-4;
                                                                          —     annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                 Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
      (OHIM) to permit registration of the term TIVAS as a                      Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
      Community Trademark in respect of the services in                         into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
      classes 09, 10 and 42 for which registration has been                     hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
      refused;                                                                  vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
—     order the OHIM to refund the appeal fee to the applicant                  capacity application for a proposed new vessel to replace
                                                                                the MFV Marie Dawn;
—     order the Office to pay the costs of the dispute, including
      those relating to the procedure before the Board of                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
      Appeal.                                                                   ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The Community trade           ‘TIVAS’ -        Application      No
mark concerned:               2025716                                     The applicant sought to replace his fishing vessel with a new
                                                                          vessel, adding some distinct safety elements that required an
Products or services:         Products in classes 9 (computers            increase of gross tonnage. The application for an increase in
                              and peripherial devices thereto             tonnage was submitted by Ireland to the European Com-
                                                                          mission, who rejected it in the contested decision ( 1).
                              and computer software for anaes-
                              thesia and intensive care), 10
                              (Medical apparatus and instru-
                              ments for anaesthesia and inten-            In support of its application, the applicant invokes, in the first
                              sive care) and 42 (medical-techni-          place, absence of power of the Commission. According to the
                              cal development and research)               applicant, the Commission’s powers under Decision 97/413 (2)
                                                                          concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring
Challenged       Decision     Refusal of the application by the           the Community fisheries are limited. The applicant submits
before the Board of           examiner                                    that Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 imposes an obligation on
Appeal:                                                                   the Commission to determine applications for increases on a
                                                                          case-by-case basis and that the only issues the Commission
Grounds submitted:            Infringement of Artice 7(1)(b) and          may consider in making its decision are whether the increase
                              (c) of Council Regulation (CE)              in capacity results exclusively from safety improvements and
                              No 40/94                                    whether it increases the fishing effort of the vessel. According
                                                                          to the applicant, the Commission therefore had no power
                                                                          under Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 to adopt certain other
                                                                          criteria referred to in Article 1 of the contested Decision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/10                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
The applicant furthermore invokes a breach of the duty to                     Pleas in law and main arguments
state reasons and a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
In this last respect, the applicant submits that a difference
appears to have been made between all applications for new                    The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
replacement vessels and two applications for new replacement                  03 (1).
vessels for the ‘Angela’ and ‘Pembroke’.
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
( 1) 2003/245/EC: Commission Decision of 4 April 2003 on the
     requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV
     objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navi-
     gation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions
     for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (notified under
     document number C(2003) 1113) (OJ L 90, p. 48).
( 2) 97/413/EC: Council Decision of 26 June 1997 concerning the
     objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community
     fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 Decem-         Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cavankee Fishing
     ber 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable             Company Limited against the Commission of the Euro-
     basis between resources and their exploitation (OJ L 175, p. 27).                                  pean Communities
                                                                                                          (Case T-220/03)
                                                                                                          (2003/C 239/15)
                                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Mullglen Limited
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             (Case T-219/03)                                  European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cavankee Fishing
                                                                              Company Limited, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gal-
                                                                              lagher and A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                            (2003/C 239/14)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                     Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                     Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                     into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                     vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Mullglen Limited,                            under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,                    capacity application to lengthen the MFV Fr McGee and
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                                     for a proposed new vessel to replace the MFV Fr McGee;
                                                                              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                          ings.
—       annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
        Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
        Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                  Pleas in law and main arguments
        into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
        hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
        vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                  The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
        under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety                 03 (1).
        capacity application for a proposed new vessel to replace
        the MFV Pacelli.
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
—       order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
        ings.