CELEX: C2000/102/55
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-268/99: Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others against the Council of the European Union

8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 102/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
                     of 16 December 1999
                                                                        — declare that the derogation provided for in Article 1(7) of
                                                                            Council Regulation No 1804/99 is severable in nature, and
in Case T-153/99, Luciano Simonella v Commission of the                     annul that derogation;
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials — Non-promotion — Action for annulment and                   — order the Council to pay all the costs.
            damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                        (2000/C 102/54)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        The applicants in the present case are professional bodies
In Case T-153/99, Luciano Simonella, official of the Com-               recognised by the French Ministry of Agriculture and compris-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Howald                 ing regional groups of organic farmers, with the object of
(Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented by Rosario Grasso,             defending and representing their interests and promoting
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                   organic farming.
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 35 Rue Notre Dame, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Christine
Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application, first, for        The application is directed against Council Regulation (EC)
annulment of the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s          No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation
complaint lodged on 25 November 1998 and, second, for                   (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural
compensation for the material and non-material damage                   products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
suffered — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),                products and foodstuffs to include livestock production,
composed of J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and                   inasmuch as it provides for the insertion in Article 5 of
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on           Regulation No 2092/91 of a derogation permitting the con-
16 December 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:            tinued use, until 1 July 2006, of trade marks referring to the
                                                                        organic production method in order to designate products
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                             which are not produced by that method, provided that a clear
                                                                        indication is given of the fact that the products are not
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                        produced according to the organic production method as
                                                                        prescribed by that regulation.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                        In support of their claims, the applicants plead, first of all,
                                                                        infringement of the Community rules on competition, in that
                                                                        the derogation in issue will have the immediate effect of
                                                                        placing undertakings producing organic foodstuffs at a disad-
                                                                        vantage, by enabling undertakings which are not in any way
Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Fédération                        engaged in organic farming to use trade marks referring to the
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France                organic production method.
(FNAB) and Others against the Council of the European
                               Union
                                                                        Moreover, the confusion created in the mind of the consumer
                        (Case T-268/99)                                 by the new Article 5 of Regulation No 2092/91 also violates
                                                                        the principle of consumer protection, as defined in Article
                        (2000/C 102/55)                                 3(t) of the Treaty. In the applicants’ view, a reasonably
                                                                        well-informed consumer is likely to treat products bearing an
                                                                        indication which refers to the organic production method as
                  (Language of the case: French)                        comparable to products which have in fact been produced by
                                                                        that method. Consequently, such trade marks, when applied
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 to products which have not in any way been produced by
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              organic methods, will inevitably give rise to confusion in the
Communities on 15 November 1999 by the Fédération                       minds of consumers.
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France
(FNAB) and the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB),         The applicants further plead:
both established in Paris, and by SARL Est Distribution
Biogram, established at Château-Salins (France), represented
by Catriona Hatton and Dirk Leermakers, of the Brussels Bar,            — breach of an essential procedural requirement, in that the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s                   Council failed to consult the Parliament with regard to the
Chambers, 5 Place du Théâtre.                                               derogation at issue in the present proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/28              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
— infringement of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                   Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch
    1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                   VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
    relating to trade marks and of Directive 84/450/EEC of                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
    10 September 1984 relating to misleading advertising;
                                                                                                (Case T-357/99)
— violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of
    legitimate expectations, proportionality, non-discrimina-
    tion and subsidiarity.                                                                      (2000/C 102/57)
                                                                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of
Action brought on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait Pet-                       Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
roleum (Nederland) B.V. against the Commission of the                   Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
                    European Communities                                Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
                                                                        Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
                        (Case T-354/99)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 102/56)
                                                                        — amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the
                                                                            Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal
                                                                            No R 352/1999-3, in such a way that there are no
                                                                            obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  trade mark UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH (application
European Communities on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait                          No 455881);
Petroleum (Nederland) B.V., of Rotterdam (Netherlands), rep-
resented by P.S.R.F. Mathijsen, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        — alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October
                                                                            1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) in appeal No R 352/1999-3
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The trade mark con-           verbal mark        ‘UNIVERSALTE-
                                                                        cerned:                       LEFONBUCH’         — application
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       No 455881
                                                                        Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
T-242/99.                                                                                             media), 16 (including printing
                                                                                                      products), 41 (including pub-
                                                                                                      lishing services) and 42 (including
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                                                    editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal: