CELEX: C2002/056/31
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-317/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssyteme mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

2.3.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 56/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesell-
                                                                        schaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssyte-
                                                                        me mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     grant him a Declaration that Commission Regulation
                                                                                 Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (EC) No. 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 and Council
      Regulation (EC) No. 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 are,
      insofar as they relate to the applicant, void, and an Order                                (Case T-317/01)
      for annulment in this regard;
                                                                                                  (2002/C 56/31)
—     order that the Council and/or the Commission pay the
      applicant’s costs of this action.
                                                                        (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                                                                                               been drafted: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Saudi Arabia            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
with substantial financial interests within the European Union,         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
challenges Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October                   17 December 2001 by M+M Gesellschaft für Unter-
2001, amending, for the third time, Council Regulation (EC)             nehmensberatung und Informationssyteme mbH, of Frankfurt
No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and                 am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer. A further
services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and               party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources           Mediametrie S.A., of Levallois Perret (France).
in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regu-
lation (EC) No 337/2000 (1), in as much as it inserted the
applicant’s name into Annex I to Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001. By Article 2/1 of the latter, all funds belonging          The applicant claims that the Court should:
to persons designated by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
the United Nations are to be frozen.                                    —     annul the decision adopted on 2 October 2001 by the
                                                                              First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that the                 No R 698/2000-1;
measures in question:
                                                                        —     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
—     Amount to an interference with property rights, protected
      as a fundamental right within the Community legal order.
—     Entitle the Council and the Commission, in violation of           Pleas in law and main arguments
      the right to a fair hearing, to freeze his assets and to
      maintain his freeze without granting him any opportunity
      to make submissions to these authorities seeking to               Applicant for the Com-         the applicant
      persuade them to release his assets.                              munity trade mark:
—     Provide, in violation of the Community Law principle of           The Community trade            the verbal mark ‘M+M EURODA-
      effective judicial control, no remedy to the Applicant by         mark applied for:              TA’ for goods and services in
      which he may seek to challenge his inclusion in the list                                         Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 (inter
      by obtaining an independent judicial assessment of the                                           alia software, market research and
      evidential basis for the interference with his rights.                                           seminars)
                                                                        Proprietor of the trade-       Mediametrie S.A.
                                                                        mark right opposed in
According to the Applicant, an independent assessment by the
                                                                        the opposition proceed-
Communty institutions or by any judicial body of the evidential         ings:
basis for the freezing of its assets would show there is no basis
for the allegations against it.
                                                                        Trade-mark            right    the Irish, French and international
                                                                        opposed:                       (effective in respect of Benelux,
                                                                                                       Spain, Italy and Portugal) verbal
(1) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25.                                                                    mark ‘EURODATA TV’
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.3.2002
Decision of the Board of      rescission of the decision of the          —     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-
Appeal:                       Opposition Division and referral                 sed, on a fair and equitable basis, in the sum of
                              of the case back to the Opposition               10 000 euros and to pay interest at 7 % per annum on
                              Division as regards the goods and                the balance of the pension due from 24 September 2000
                              services not covered by the                      to 1 April 2001;
                              decision of the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Grounds of claim:             —     infringement         of    Ar-
                                    ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                    (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                              —     no risk of confusion;
                                                                         The pleas in law and arguments advanced are broadly similar
                              —     no similarity between the
                                                                         to those put forward in Case T-124/01 Del Vaglio v Com-
                                    allegedly conflicting services.
                                                                         mission (OJ 2001 C 227, p. 31).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler
                                                                         Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
                                                                                                 (Case T-321/01)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 56/33)
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-320/01)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2002/C 56/32)                                 European Communities on 15 December 2001 by Interna-
                                                                         tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., established at Rosbach (Federal Repub-
                                                                         lic of Germany), represented by Hans Kaltenecker, lawyer.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               16 October 2001 by which it refused the applicant’s
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      1996 and 1997 requests for co-financing;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del
                                                                         —     order the Commission, pursuant to the principle of
Vaglio, residing in London, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                               reimbursement, to pay the costs, including those resulting
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                               from the procedures before the Ombudsman which the
                                                                               applicant was constrained to incur in order to obtain its
                                                                               entitlement.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the defendant’s decision of 6 September 2001                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the appli-
     cation to his pension of the weighting for the United
     Kingdom;                                                            The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision of
                                                                         16 October 2001 rejecting three requests for co-financing
                                                                         which it had made under budget heading B7-6000, concerning
—    order the defendant to apply the weighting for the United           the co-financing of actions with European non-governmental
     Kingdom with retroactive effect from 24 September                   development organisations (NGDOs) in fields relating to
     2000;                                                               developing countries.