You are on page 1of 1

C 112/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.5.


Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant for Com- Licorera Zacapaneca S.A. — annul the decision of the defendant refusing the applicant
munity trade mark: access to certain legislative proposals containing the
identity of Member States’ positions, and to a legal
Community trade mark Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ — opinion drawn up by the Council’s Legal Service.
sought: Application No 986000 lodged in
respect of goods in Classes 32 and
33 (inter alia mineral and aerated — order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
waters and other non-alcoholic
drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,

Proprietor of mark or The applicant Pleas in law and main arguments

sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in Figurative mark consisting of a The applicant is an Italian Member of the European Parliament.
opposition: stag’s head with a cross, registered On 22 October 2002 the applicant submitted a request to the
in respect of goods in Classes 18, defendant requesting access to the documents appearing on
25, 32 and 33 (inter alia the agenda of the 2455th meeting of the Council (Justice and
umbrellas, clothing, non- Home Affairs) which took place in Luxembourg on 14 and
alcoholic beverages in so far as 15 October 2002. In its reply, dated 5 November 2002, the
included in Class 32, wines and defendant indicated that full access could be granted to most
spirits) — Trade mark No 337337 of the documents requested by the applicant. However, with
regard to three legislative proposals, the defendant indicated
Decision of the Oppo- Registration refused that the applicant could be granted only partial access, and in
sition Division: particular that access could not be granted to those parts of
the proposals identifying the positions taken by the national
Decision of the Board of Rejection of the applicant’s oppo- delegations on the subject matters under discussion. The
Appeal: sition defendant further refused to grant access to a fourth document
which contained a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal
Pleas in law: — Infringement of Article 73 of service.
Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

— Misapplication of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation In support of his application the applicant submits the
(EC) No 40/94; following contentions:
— Incorrect assessment of the
similarity of the marks. — By refusing access to the documents mentioned above,
the defendant violated Articles 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Regulation EC/1049/2001 (1) as well as the principle of

— the defendant violated Article 253 EC and Article 7,

paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation EC/1049/2001 in that
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco it failed to provide sufficient reasons for its Decision
against the Council of the European Union
— the defendant violated citizens’ fundamental political and
(Case T-84/03) civil rights as guaranteed by international and European
conventions and the European Union treaties, in particu-
(2003/C 112/73) lar Article 6 EU, by censoring Member States’ positions
when acting as a legislator.
(Language of the case: English)

(1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
An action against the Council of the European Union was European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
Communities on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco,
Pulsano, Italy, represented by Mr O. W. Brouwer and Mr
Thomas Janssens, Lawyers.