CELEX: C2003/200/53
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-215/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

23.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/29
As a result of these breaches, the applicant claims to have                 Action brought on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A. against
suffered loss. This loss consists firstly of the profits generated          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
by First Choice as reported in its audited accounts and that                                             (OHIM)
would have accrued to the applicant if the acquisition had not
been prohibited by the Commission. Secondly, the applicant
                                                                                                     (Case T-215/03)
claims the loss of synergy costs savings that would have been
obtained in consequence of the merger and, thirdly, the costs of
the abortive bid for First Choice which were wasted as a result                                      (2003/C 200/53)
of the Decision of the Commission.
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1
( ) 2000/276/EC: Commission Decision of 22 September 1999
    declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
    market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
    Choice) (notified under document number C(1999) 3022) (Text             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
    with EEA relevance) (OJ L 93 of 2000, p. 1).                            Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on              of the European Communities on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA,
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (text repub-         S.A., with offices in Madrid, represented by E. Armijo Chávarri.
    lished in OJ L 257 of 1990, p. 13).
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002, Airtours/
    Commission, T-342/99, ECR II-2585.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                  no. R 1127/2000-3 of 1 April 2003 on the ground that
                                                                                  it is inconsistent with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/
                                                                                  94;
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Francesco Contesso                        —     in the alternative, annul the contested decision on the
      against Commission of the European Communities                              ground that it prejudices SIGLA's rights of defence and
                                                                                  the principle underlying Article 74 of Regulation No 40/
                           (Case T-213/03)                                        94; and
                           (2003/C 200/52)                                  —     order OHIM to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Francesco                           Applicant for Community          ELLENI HOLDING BV
Contesso, residing in Paris, represented by Sebastien Orlandi,              trade mark:
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘VIPS’ Application
                                                                            sought:                          No 459.875 sought for pro-
—      annul the decision drawing up the definitive staff report                                             ducts and services within
       for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;                                                      classes 9, 35 and 42 and, sub-
                                                                                                             sequently, only for services
—      order the Commission to pay the applicant a token one                                                 within class 42 (computer pro-
       euro for compensation for the non-material damage                                                     gramming services for hotels,
       sustained;                                                                                            restaurants and cafes)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or sign       The applicant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             cited in the opposition pro-
                                                                            ceedings:
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the assessor's prior duty to consult senior assessors before
finalising the staff report, infringement of the assessor's duty to
require them to initial each of the pages and to sign the                   Mark or sign cited in op-        Spanish word mark ‘VIPS’ (re-
definitive staff report, infringement of the duty to give reasons,          position:                        gistration No 551.436) for pro-
in so far as the appeal assessor did not state why he did not                                                ducts of class 42 (supplying
take account of the opinions of the hierarchical superiors                                                   prepared food and drink for
consulted.                                                                                                   consumption, restaurants, ser-
                                                                                                             vice stations, canteens, bars and
                                                                                                             cafeterias and hotel services)
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/30              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Decision of the Opposition       Acceptance of the opposition             principle of non-discrimination. The applicant points out that
Division:                        for services falling within              the defendant did not conduct an examination of the compara-
                                 class 42, rejection of the oppo-         tive merits of the applicant with those of the officials of all the
                                 sition for products falling with-        Directorates-General eligible for promotion, but limited itself to
                                 in classes 9 and 35                      the ‘quota’ which had been allocated to the applicant's Direc-
                                                                          torate-General, gave an advantage to officials considered as
                                                                          reserve candidates from the previous year's promotion proce-
                                                                          dure and did not take account of applicant's transfer, during
Decision of the Board of         Action upheld, contested deci-           the reference period, from one Directorate-General to another.
Appeal:                          sion annulled
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 8(5) of
                                 (EC) Regulation No 40/94 and,
                                 in the alternative, infringement
                                 of Article 8(1)(b) of the regula-
                                 tion                                     Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale
                                                                          de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the
                                                                                    Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-217/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 200/55)
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo Tenreiro
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-216/03)
                         (2003/C 200/54)                                  An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 19 June 2003 by the Fédération
                                                                          Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande, (National Coop-
                                                                          erative Association for Livestock and Meat) established in Paris,
                                                                          represented by Robert Collin and Michel Ponsard, lawyers, with
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   an address for service in Luxembourg.
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo
Tenreiro, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
                                                                          —     annul Decision C.38.179/F3 of 2 April 2003 in so far as
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     it affects the applicant;
—     annul the decision not to promote the applicant in the              —     alternatively quash the fine imposed by that decision;
      2002 promotion procedure, as it appears from the
      absence of the applicant's name in the list of officials
      promoted to grade A4 published in the Administrative                —     in the further alternative reduce it;
      Notice of 14 August 2002 (No 69-2002);
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
—     declare that the applicant is entitled to the actual promo-
      tion which should have been granted him in the 2002
      promotion procedure, with retrospective effect and full
      restoration of his financial and career rights;
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By its contested decision, the Commission imposed on the
                                                                          applicant and five other French associations of producers and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          slaughterers a fine based on alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in respect of an agreement to
In support of his action the applicant pleads infringement of             suspend beef imports to France and to fix a minimum price
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and breach of the                  for certain categories of animals.