CELEX: C2002/233/59
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-235/02: Action brought on 5 August 2002 by Strongline A/S against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

28.9.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Communities on 2 August 2002 by Kharis Alexandratos
                                                                          and Maria Panagiotou, resident in Brussels, represented by
                                                                          K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants, being the President of AIFO (Associazione
Italiana Frantoiani Oleari) and that association itself, seek
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil ( 1).
                                                                          —     allow the application;
In support of their claims, they plead infringement of
Article 33, the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) and                  —     annul the contested measures so that the defendant is
Articles 153, 157 and 253 of the EC Treaty. They maintain                       obliged to allow the applicants to sit the oral tests;
in that regard that the contested regulation favours the
maintenance of the dominant positions occupied by large                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
undertakings in the sector concerned, thereby impeding the
development of small and medium-sized undertakings, and
that it does not provide consumers with guarantees as to the
provenance and authenticity of the product. In particular, the            Pleas in law and main arguments
regulation provides that the labelling is to bear information on
the category of olive oil concerned, but that information is
inadequate to guarantee the intrinsic quality of the product.             This is an action challenging the decision of the selection
More specifically, it provides that the designation of origin of          board for Council Open Competition A/393 to award the
virgin and extra virgin olive oils is to be purely optional,              applicants a fail mark in one of the written tests and not to
whereas, for consumers, the geographical origin of the raw                allow them to sit the oral tests.
materials is invariably a point of major importance. The
regulation requires the product to be presented to the final
consumer in packaging of a maximum capacity of five litres,               The applicants plead infringement of the first paragraph of
to the prejudice of small operators such as pressers, who                 Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal
generally sell the product in bulk on the spot.                           treatment. They contend that the infringement is aggravated
                                                                          by the defendant’s refusal to grant requests made by them
                                                                          seeking information concerning the guidelines and criteria for
Moreover, the contested regulation does not provide adequate
                                                                          marking their papers and comparing them with those of the
guarantees as to the provenance and authenticity of the
product, thus impeding the marketing of types of oil which                successful candidates.
are of higher quality and are more susceptible to direct control
by the consumer, such as that sold directly by the presser.               Furthermore, in the applicants’ submission that refusal renders
                                                                          the contested measures liable to annulment also by reason of
From another standpoint, and contrary to the objective of                 breach of the duty to state reasons for measures adversely
the common agricultural policy, the contested regulation                  affecting them and of the principle of transparency in conjunc-
discourages the distribution of high-quality olive oil such as            tion with Article 255 EC concerning access to documents.
that marketed directly by pressers, and acts as a disincentive
to productivity, technical progress and rational agricultural
development.
( 1) OJ L 155 of 14.6.2002, p. 27.
                                                                          Action brought on 5 August 2002 by Strongline A/S
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                                       Market
Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Kharis Alexandratos                                            (Case T-235/02)
and Maria Panagiotou against the Council of the European
                               Union
                                                                                                  (2002/C 233/59)
                         (Case T-233/02)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
                         (2002/C 233/58)
                    (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 5 August 2002 by Strongline A/S,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   represented by Mr Jacob S. Ørndrup at Gorrissen, Federspiel,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                Kierkegaard in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/34              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.9.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                              —     Registration of the Scala Inc’s
                                                                                                               Community trade mark
                                                                                                               application is an infringe-
—     annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 27 May                                                     ment of Article 8(1) of
      2002 in Case R 830/2001-1;                                                                               Council Regulation No 40/
                                                                                                               94, as the applicant is the
—     remit the case to the First Board of Appeal;                                                             owner of two earlier and
                                                                                                               identical trade marks which
                                                                                                               are registered for identical or
—     order each party to bear its own costs.                                                                  similar goods.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Luigi Marcuccio
Applicant for the Com-         Scala Inc., USA                              against the Commission of the European Communities
munity trade mark:
                                                                                                   (Case T-236/02)
The Community trade            Word mark SCALA for ‘computer
mark concerned:                software’ in class 9.                                               (2002/C 233/60)
Proprietor to the right to     The Applicant                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Luigi Marcuccio,
Trade mark or sign             Danish trade mark registration no.
asserted by way of oppo-       VR 1300 1989 SCALA (word                   represented by Luciano Garofalo, lawyer.
sition in the opposition       mark), registered on 17 March
proceedings:                   1989, and German trade mark                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               registration no. 2059843 SCALA
                               (Word mark), registered on                 —    annul the decision changing the ‘affectation de l’emploi
                               15 March 1994. These two marks                  A7/A6 et de son titulaire M. Luigi Marcuccio (n. Personnel
                               are registered for a range of goods             048092), fonctionnaire de grade A7’ (‘transferring the
                               in classes 9 and 16. The appli-                 A6/A7 post and its holder, Mr Luigi Marcuccio (Staff
                               cant’s opposition was based on                  No 048092), a grade A7 official’) from the Directorate-
                               some of the goods for which                     General for Development, Commission’s Delegation in
                               the earlier mark was registered,                Luanda (Angola) to the Directorate-General for Develop-
                               specifically ‘counterprograms sto-              ment in Brussels; the said decision was adopted by the
                               red on datacarriers’ and ‘date pro-             Director-General for Development, Mr Koos Richelle, on
                               cessing programs stored on data                 18 March 2002;
                               carriers’ in class 9, and was direct-
                               ed against all the goods specified         —    order the defendant:
                               in Scala Inc’s application
                                                                               —     to pay compensation for the non-material, existen-
Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application                            tial, biological, physical, psychological and material
sition Division:                                                                     damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
                                                                                     decision contested in these proceedings, in the sum
                                                                                     of 100 000 (one hundred thousand) euros or such
Decision of the Board of       Refusal of he application                             greater or lesser sum as the Court may think fair and
Appeal:                                                                              equitable;
Grounds of claim:              —     The documents submitted by                —     to pay all the salary-related allowances connected
                                     the Applicant to the Oppo-                      with the performance by the said Marcuccio of his
                                     sition Division did comply                      duties in Angola, with effect from the date on which
                                     with Rule 16(2) of Regu-                        his transfer took effect (1 April 2002), together with
                                     lation (EC) No. 2868/95,                        interest thereon at the rate of 10 % per annum,
                                     implementing Council Regu-                      compounded annually;
                                     lation No 40/94, on the
                                     Community Trade Mark                      —     to pay the costs.