You are on page 1of 2

C 57/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.

2005

Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Association In support of its claims, the applicant relies on three pleas in
Coopération des Bibliothèques de Bretagne (COBB) against law. The first concerns a mistake in the statement of reasons,
Commission of the European Communities the second brings together arguments alleging breach of the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the
third alleges breach of the duty to state reasons.
(Case T-485/04)
The applicant submits in that regard that:

(2005/C 57/54)
— contrary to the defendant's statement, the applicant is estab-
lished in an eligible area, since there is no requirement in
Action 215, Axis A concerning the recipient's registered
(Language of the case: French) office, and, since, in this case, the area concerned covers the
whole of Area 5b, that is to say, ‘the rural and costal world’
of Brittany. Also, Action 215 lists individually the
‘economic development associations and bodies’, which
shows that the two expressions cannot be mistaken;
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 December 2004 by the Associa- — the agreement granting subsidy signed between the appli-
tion Coopération des Bibliothèques de Bretagne (COBB), estab- cant and the Prefecture on 31 December 2001 contained
lished in Rennes (France), represented by J.-P. Martin, lawyer. precise assurances which gave rise in the applicant's mind
to expectations based on the continuity of the operation in
The applicant claims that the Court should: question. Further, a European Union subsidy of EUR 10 976
was actually paid to the applicant in March 2002 under
Programme 5b;
— annul the subparagraph concerning the COBB of Decision
No 1116 dated 9 December 2003 of the Commission of
the European Communities. — the applicable Community legislation makes no reference
either to possible withdrawal of a subsidy or to a demand
for repayment thereof under the ERDF;

Pleas in law and main arguments — the decision complained of confines itself to a gap-filling
reference to the reservation issued by the Commission inter-
ministérielle de coordination des contrôles (the Interminis-
This action is against the Commission's decision which terial Commission for Coordination of Controls), but
excluded the operation ‘Réseau des périodiques de Bretagne, contains no reasoned or sufficient explanation enabling the
année 1999’ (Brittany Periodicals Network 1999), for which the reasons why the Commission held the operation in ques-
applicant had applied for a subsidy from the ERDF, from tion to be ineligible to be understood.
expenditure eligible under the Programme Objectif 5b Bretagne
1994-1999 (Programme Objective 5b Brittany 1994-1999).

The applicant sought that financing under a programme of


rural and costal development entitled ‘Morgane 2’, which was
implemented for the Brittany Region, in respect of Objective
5b for the period 1994-1999. That programme describes all Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail
the action eligible for European financing, of which Action against the Commission of the European Communities
215, which comes within Priority Axis A aimed at mobilising
the employment market and, more particularly, within Measure
2 aimed at improving the competitiveness of businesses, by
developing remote working and access to teleservices. (Case T-486/04)

In concrete terms, the operation ‘Brittany Periodicals Network’


consists of putting in place, thanks to a network of establish- (2005/C 57/55)
ments, a hardware and software infrastructure managing a data-
base made up of articles from periodicals and studies covering
Brittany, in order to make high-quality information on that (Language of the case: French)
region accessible, via the Internet, to all decision-makers
(elected representatives, heads of undertakings, etc.). Its aim is
to support and raise the quality of information and decision of
the economic decision-makers with a view to greater competi-
tiveness of undertakings.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
It was only after two agreements granting subsidy had been European Communities on 13 December 2004 by Christos
signed, that the Region's Prefecture notified the applicant of the Michail, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Hara-
contested decision. lambos Meidanis, lawyer.
5.3.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 57/33

The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's Decisions of 20 March 2004, impli- — annul Decision R 176/2004-2 of the Second Board of
edly rejecting the application for assistance under Article Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;
24 of the Staff Regulations made by the applicant on 20
November 2003, and of 13 September 2004, rejecting the — order OHIM to pay all the costs.
complaint lodged by the applicant;

— make an appropriate order as to costs. Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark Word mark ‘BIN LADIN’ for goods


Pleas in law and main arguments: sought: and services in Classes 9, 12, 14,
18, 25, 28, 35 and 41 – Applica-
tion No 2 223 907.
On 20 November 2003, the applicant, a Commission official,
made an application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff
Decision of the exam- Refusal to register.
Regulations alleging that he was the victim of mental harass-
iner:
ment on the part of the administration of his institution. By his
action, he seeks the annulment of the implied decision rejecting
that application and the decision rejecting his complaint Decision of the Board Dismissal of the appeal.
submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of


The applicant claims that the defendant did not take action on Council Regulation No 40/94. The
his complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the verification applicant claims that registration
and checking of Community joint financing but, on the of the mark in question would not
contrary, precisely because of his complaints, adopted an atti- be contrary to either public policy
tude designed to intimidate him and to compromise his career. or accepted principles of morality.
In support of his action, he relies on Articles 12a, 21a, 22b
and 24 of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of the Financial
Regulation, the principle of sound financial management and
the protection of the financial interests of the Commission, the
principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and a manifest
error of assessment on the part of the Commission.

Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting


Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-488/04)
Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting
Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (2005/C 57/57)

(Case T-487/04) (Language in which the application was lodged: French)

(2005/C 57/56)
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 15
(Language in which the application was lodged: French) December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in
Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:


An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before — annul Decision R 177/2004-2of the Second Board of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;
December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in
Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer. — order OHIM to pay all the costs.