Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

2.8.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/49

The application for increase in capacity of the applicant was — order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 as token
submitted by Ireland to the European Commission, who rejected damages for the harm suffered;
it in the contested decision.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
In support of its present application, the applicant submits that
the Commission erred in law and in fact. According to the
applicant, the increase in capacity complies with the provisions
of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EEC and is there-
fore eligible for approval. Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the
violated the principle of legal certainty, the applicant's legit- obligation to state reasons in that the appeal assessor, when
imate expectations and the principle of non-retroactivity. drawing up the applicant's report for 1999 to 2001, did not
According to the applicant, the Commission applied criteria indicate the reasons why he did not take account of the views
which were not in existence at the time the replacement vessel of the persons consulted or of the difficult working conditions.
was ordered or at the time the application for increase in Nor did he explain precisely why the general assessment made
capacity was submitted to the Commission. by him was less favourable than that appearing in the staff
report drawn up before the appeal to the Joint Committee on
Staff Reports.
In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission had
regard to the nature of the applications for increase prior to
The applicant also pleads the non-material damage suffered by
adopting the said criteria and applied criteria that discriminated
reason of the belated drawing up of his staff report.
against the applicant. The applicant claims that the exception
for vessels lost at sea and allowing an increase in tonnage in
respect of these new vessels constitutes an unjustified discrimi-
nation.

The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the


principle of proportionality, failed to give adequate or sufficient
reasons and denied the applicant's right to be heard.
Action brought on 30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria
S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(1) OJ L 175, p. 27. Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-194/03)

(2003/C 184/106)

(Language of the case: Italian)


Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro against
the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Case T-193/03) Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
30 May 2003 by Il Ponte Finanziaria S.p.A., represented by
(2003/C 184/105) P.L. Roncaglia, A.T. Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers.

(Language of the Case: French) The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Marine Enterprise Projects Società Unipersonale di Alberto
Fiorenzi S.r.l.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu- The applicant claims that the Court should:
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Giuseppe Piro,
resident in Wezembeek Oppem (Belgium), represented by — annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg. Marks and Designs) of 17 March 2003 in Case R 1015/
2001-4

The applicant claims that the Court should: — order the OHIM to dismiss the application for a Commu-
nity trade mark No 940007 BAINBRIDGE (figurative);
— annul the decision establishing the definitive staff report
for 1997 to 1999; — order the OHIM to pay the costs.