CELEX: C2003/055/84
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-386/02: Action brought on 16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

C 55/32                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        8.3.2003
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of                    Pleas in law and main arguments
proportionality and breach of the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations based on the existence of Community
financing for the production and marketing of ‘Feta’.                        The applicant is an official at the Commission in Brussels. In
                                                                             June 2000, on taking up his appointment, he settled in
                                                                             Brussels. His spouse subsequently settled in Brussels with him
( 1) OJ L 277, p. 10.                                                        and organised the removal of the family, which took place on
( 2) Judgment in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96                11 April 2001, whilst continuing to be present at her
     Denmark and Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.                      former home in Madrid, where their youngest daughter was
( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the              completing her secondary education. Consequently, his spouse
     protection of geographical indications and designations of origin       and daughter did not join him until July 2001, which they
     for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208, p. 1).              declared to the Privileges and Immunities service.
                                                                             By the contested decision, the Commission refused to pay the
                                                                             applicant the second half of the installation allowance.
                                                                             In support of his action, the applicant pleads an error of law
                                                                             and a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant,
Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Fernando                               the administration attached decisive importance to the declar-
Valenzuela Marzo against Commission of the European                          ations made by his spouse and daughter to the Privileges and
                            Communities                                      Immunities service. The applicant states that the concept of
                                                                             installation is a factual concept and that the text of the Staff
                                                                             Regulations does not prescribe any particular mode of proof.
                           (Case T-384/02)
                                                                             The applicant also pleads an error of law and an omission of
                           (2003/C 55/83)                                    essential facts, since the administration considered the period
                                                                             laid down by Articles 5(4) and 9(3) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                             Regulations to be a mandatory time-limit and did not consider
                      (Language of the case: French)                         the possibility of waiving it by reason of the complainant’s
                                                                             establishment as an official on taking up his appointment and
                                                                             the fact that his daughter was unable to join her parents in
                                                                             Brussels before the end of the school year.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Fernando
Valenzuela Marzo, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-
Albert Lucas, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Action brought on 16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G.
                                                                             against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
—      annul the decisions of the head of the Administration of                            (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
       Individual Rights unit of the Adminstration Directorate-
       General of 16 November 2001 and 13 February 2002                                               (Case T-386/02)
       refusing the applicant the second half of the installation
       allowance;
                                                                                                       (2003/C 55/84)
—      annul the decision of the appointing authority of 16 Sep-
       tember 2002 rejecting the complaint through official                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
       channels of 9 May 2002 against the abovementioned
       decisions;
—      order the Commission to pay the applicant the second
                                                                             An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       half of his installation allowance together with default              Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
       interest at the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from
                                                                             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
       11 April 2001 and until payment is made in full;
                                                                             16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G., whose registered
                                                                             office is in Madrid, represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the
                                                                                authorisation of an additive and amending Commission
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                   Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999;
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)
      of 1 October 2002 in Case 114/2000-1;
                                                                          —     order the Council to pay the costs;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     in the alternative, should the application be dismissed on
                                                                                the merits, apply the first subparagraph of Article 87(3)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 of the Rules of Procedure and order the Council to pay
                                                                                the costs, in view of the persistent lack of cooperation
Applicant for the Com-        J. Tricot & Sons Ltd.                             and transparency on the part of the Commission in the
munity trade mark:                                                              administrative handling of the case.
The Community trade           ‘EMOS’          —       Application
mark concerned:               No 133637 for goods in Class 25
                              (articles of clothing)
Proprietor of the right to    Applicant                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                              The applicant manufactures Nifursol, a feedingstuff additive.
                                                                          The applicant is contesting Council Regulation No 1756/
Trade mark or sign            German trade mark ‘EMOSWISS’                2002 (1). The contested regulation amends Council Directive
asserted by way of oppo-      registered in respect of goods              70/524/EEC ( 2) concerning additives in feeding-stuffs and
sition in the opposition      within Classes 10, 24 and 25                withdraws authorisation to place Nifursol on the market. That
proceedings:                                                              authorisation is linked, by virtue of Regulation No 2430/
Decision of the Oppo-         Application rejected                        1999 (3), to the person responsible for putting the product
                                                                          into circulation, in this case the applicant.
sition Division:
Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed
Appeal:
                                                                          In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)           of Articles 9m and 3a(b) of Directive 70/524/EEC and breach
                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-          of the precautionary principle. The sixth recital in the preamble
                              lihood of confusion).                       to the contested regulation states that it could not be guaran-
                                                                          teed that Nifursol does not present a risk for human health.
                                                                          According to the applicant, the Council altered the test
                                                                          referred to in the abovementioned articles according to which
                                                                          authorisation may be withdrawn only where it becomes
                                                                          apparent that the additive adversely affects human or animal
                                                                          health or the environment, or harms the consumer by
Action brought on 26 December 2002 by Solvay Pharma-
                                                                          impairing the characteristics of products.
    ceuticals B.V. against Council of the European Union
                         (Case T-392/02)
                                                                          The applicant further points out that the Council cannot rely
                         (2003/C 55/85)                                   on the precautionary principle since no reference is made
                                                                          thereto. In any event, the applicant claims that the Council is
                   (Language of the case: French)                         in fact choosing a purely hypothetical risk criterion which is
                                                                          irreconcilable with the case-law of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          which rules out a zero-risk level when applying the precaution-
                                                                          ary principle.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 December 2002 by Solvay Pharmaceut-
icals B.V., established in Weesp (Netherlands), represented by            The applicant also alleges infringement of the fifth indent of
Callista Meijer, Francis Herbert and Michel L. Struys, lawyers,           Article 9m of Directive 70/524 as amended and of the general
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                principle of equal treatment. According to the applicant, the
                                                                          Council and the Commission could not base themselves on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the inadequacy of the information provided in order to
                                                                          withdraw authorisation, when the Commission has not made
—     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of 23 Sep-               use of its powers to enjoin the person responsible for placing
      tember 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-                  an additive on the market to provide it with information.