CELEX: C2003/070/32
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2003 In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01: Philip Morris International Inc. and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Decision to bring legal proceedings before a court in a non-Member State — Action for annulment — Concept of decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Admissibility)

C 70/20                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                                   of 15 January 2003
                         of 23 January 2003
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01
in Case T-53/00: Serena Angioli v Commission of the                         and T-272/01: Philip Morris International Inc. and Others
                    European Communities ( 1)                                      v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Decision to bring legal proceedings before a court in a non-
(Officials — Action for annulment — Internal competition                    Member State — Action for annulment — Concept of
for the establishment of members of the temporary staff                     decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of
— Non-inclusion on the list of suitable candidates —                                        Article 230 EC — Admissibility)
       Confidentiality of the work of the selection board)
                                                                                                     (2003/C 70/32)
                           (2003/C 70/31)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and
                                                                            T-272/01, Philip Morris International, Inc., established in Rye
                                                                            Brook, New York (United States), represented by É. Morgan de
In Case T-53/00: Serena Angioli, residing in Brussels, represent-           Rivery and J. Derenne, lawyers, with an address for service in
ed by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, with an address for             Luxembourg, applicant in Cases T-377/00 and T-272/01,
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                   R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-
Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for                   Salem, North Carolina (United States), RJR Acquisition Corp.,
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 May 1999 not                   established in Wilmington, New Castle, Delaware (United
to include the applicant on the list of suitable candidates in              States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, established in Jersey
Internal Competition COM/TA/2/98 for the establishment of                   City, New Jersey (United States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
members of the temporary staff, and for annulment of all                    International, Inc., established in Dover, Kent, Delaware
subsequent measures taken by the selection board for the                    (United States), represented by P. Lomas, Solicitor, and
competition and by the appointing authority — the Court                     O. Brouwer, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-                  bourg, applicants in Cases T-379/00 and T-260/01, Japan
Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;                    Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            P. Lomas, Solicitor, and O. Brouwer, Lawyer, with an address
has given a judgment on 23 January 2003, the operative part                 for service in Luxembourg, against in Case T-380/00, v
of which is as follows:                                                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
                                                                            X. Lewis and C. Ladenburger, and, subsequently, C. Docksey
                                                                            and Ladenburger), supported by European Parliament (Agents:
                                                                            R. Passos and A. Baas), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
1.     The application is dismissed;                                        Lapuerta), French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues), Italian
                                                                            Republic (Agent: U. Leanza), Portuguese Republic (Agents:
                                                                            L. Fernandes and Â. Cortesão de Seiça Neves), Republic of
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.                              Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin), in Cases T-377/
                                                                            00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01, Federal
                                                                            Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma),
                                                                            Hellenic Republic (Agent: V. Kontolaimos), in Cases T-260/01
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.                                                   and T-272/01, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: in Cases
                                                                            T-260/01 and T-272/01, H. Sevenster and, in Case T-379/00,
                                                                            Sevenster and J. van Bakel): Applications for annulment of two
                                                                            decisions by the Commission to commence legal proceedings
                                                                            against the applicants before a federal court in the United
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 70/21
States of America, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A. W. H. Meij,
Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a
judgment on 15 January 2003, in which it:                                                             of 15 January 2003
1.     Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;
                                                                             in Case T-171/01: Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécom-
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and        munications en Europe (IDATE) v Commission of the
       severally, the costs incurred by the Commission;                                           European Communities (1)
3.     Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (Arbitration clause — Community Trans-European Telecom-
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001 and C 3 of 5.1.2002.                               munications Networks Programme — Contract relating
                                                                             to the organisation of seminars on using Euro-ISDN —
                                                                                                        Allowable costs)
                                                                                                         (2003/C 70/34)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 12 December 2002                                                       (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-110/01: Vedial SA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Earlier word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 — Application for                          In Case T-171/01, Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécommuni-
a figurative Community mark including the word ‘HUBERT’                      cations en Europe (IDATE), established in Montpellier (France),
— Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion                     represented by H. Calvet, lawyer, with an address for service in
        — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                       Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Shotter and J.-L. Fagnart):
                                                                             Application for a declaration by the Court of First Instance
                             (2003/C 70/33)                                  that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for the
                                                                             purposes of the contract concluded between the Commission
                      (Language of the case: French)                         and the applicant in the context of the Trans-European
                                                                             Telecommunications Networks Programme, covers the whole
                                                                             of the costs invoiced by the applicant’s subcontractors under
                                                                             that contract and, in the alternative, for compensation for the
In Case T-110/01: Vedial SA, a company established in Ludres,                loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the
France, represented by T. van Innis and G. Glas, Lawyers, with
                                                                             breaches committed by the Commission in the performance
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
                                                                             of that contract, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
Hamonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)                composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
(OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly), the other party to the proceedings
                                                                             A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
before the board of appeal of the Office for Hamonisation in                 on 15 January 2003, in which it:
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) being France
Distribution, a company established in Emerainville, France —
appeal against the decision of the first board of appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks                 1.     Declares that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for
and designs) of 9 March 2001 (Case R 127/2000-1) — the                              the purposes of the contract at issue, covers the whole of the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of                               costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under that
M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                        contract.
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                             2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1.     Dismissed the action;
2.     Ordered each party to bear its costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.