CELEX: C2003/146/71
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-110/03: Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union

21.6.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/39
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          of 9 April 2003                                  —     annul, on the basis of art. 230 of EC Treaty, Council
                                                                                 Decision of 21 January 2003 (41/c/01/02): Answer
in Case T-217/01: Forum des migrants de l’Union euro-                            adopted by the Council on the 21st of January 2003 to
   péenne v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                          the confirmatory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by
                                                                                 fax on the 11 of December 2002 under Article 7 (2) of
                                                                                 the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the
(Community financial support — Operating costs —                                 applicant’s counsel on January 23, 2003.
Decision to terminate financial support — Principle of sound
financial management — Interpretation of the conditions of
support — Right to a fair hearing — Protection of legitimate               —     require the respondent party to bear the costs of suit.
                            expectations)
                          (2003/C 146/70)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case T-217/01, Forum des migrants de l’Union européenne,                The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
having its registered office in Brussels (Belgium), represented            Case T-47/03 Sison against Council and Commission (1),
initially by E. Degrez and subsequently by N. Crama, lawyers,              pursues the annulment of the defendants decision not to allow
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                          him access to all the documents which formed the basis of the
A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and L. Parpala): Application for annul-                Council Decision 2002/848/EC ( 2), by which the applicant
ment of the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2001 to                       himself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the
terminate the financial support granted to the applicant under             list pertinent to Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 ( 3), as
Article A0-3040 of the Community budget, the Court of First                well as access to any information regarding which Member
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,               States provided documents mentioned in the contested
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-               Decision. The applicant also asked to be informed about the
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 2003,           rules and criteria applied by the Council regarding sensitive
in which it:                                                               documents that shall be made public following Article 9,
                                                                           point 6, of Regulation 1049/2001 ( 4).
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the          The Council’s position was based on Article 4(a), first and third
       defendant.                                                          points, of the Regulation 1049/2001. According to the
                                                                           defendant, the disclosure of information with regard to
                                                                           combatting terrorism, which is in the possession of the
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                               Member States authorities, could give the persons, entities or
                                                                           groups who are the subject of this information, the opportunity
                                                                           to threaten the efforts of these authorities and thus undermine
                                                                           the protection of public interest as regards public security.
                                                                           With reference to the Member States that provided sensitive
                                                                           documents, the Council stated that the ‘originator authority’ is
                                                                           opposed to the disclosure of the requested information. About
Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison                        the rules concerning sensitive documents, the Council referred
          against the Council of the European Union                        to the Council decision 2001/264/CE adopting the Council’s
                                                                           security regulations.
                          (Case T-110/03)
                          (2003/C 146/71)                                  In support of its application, the applicant submits:
                   (Language of the case: English)                         —     Failure of motivation and violation of the principle of
                                                                                 sound administration.
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    —     Violation of the principles enshrined in Article 6 ECHR
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                       and especially of the right to be informed promptly, in a
Communities on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,                       language which the applicant understands and in detail,
the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte,                       of the nature and cause of the accusation, as well as of
Mr H. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.                                         the principle of proportionality.
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
With regard to this last point, the applicant states that the               Pleas in law and main arguments
right to be informed of the cause of the accusation against him
cannot be neutralised by the protection of public interest as
regards public security and international relations. Considering            Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
all the damages suffered by the applicant, the balance of                   munity trade mark:
interest is in his favour.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘NLSPORT’ —
                                                                            sought:                      Application No 816 512 for
( 1) Not published in the OJ yet.                                                                        goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
( 2) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)                                       and 25.
     of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
     directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Naulover S.A.
     combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ
     L 295 of 30.10.2001, p. 12).                                           sign cited in the oppo-
( 3) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive         sition proceedings:
     measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
     to combating terrorism (OJ L 344 of 28.12.2001, p. 70).                Mark or sign cited in        Community            trade      mark
( 4) Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May        opposition:                  No 13417, consisting in an N
     2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
                                                                                                         superposed on an L, both in
     and Commission documents (OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
                                                                                                         English characters.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the opposition.
                                                                            sition Division:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                                         ance of the opposition.
Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited                          Pleas in law:                Incorrect         application      of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                       No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                                         fusion).
                          (Case T-117/03)
                          (2003/C 146/72)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited
                                                                            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                          (Case T-118/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by                                                (2003/C 146/73)
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
       Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R95/2002-1, and                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—      Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the           4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
       costs arising from the proceedings and from Case No 95/              in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by
       2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.                     R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.