You are on page 1of 2

C 305/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.12.

2002

The applicant further takes issue with the supplementary fixing applications was 18 March 2002. The Commission notified
of interest. The applicant invokes deferment of payment and that vacancy notice to its staff on 14 March 2002. The
protection of legitimate expectations and raises the objection deadline for the submission of applications, indicated in that
of misuse of powers. The Commission, it claims, did not make publication, was 2 April 2002.
it clear during the period required by it for taking a decision
that it would be seeking increased interest for that period.
Instead, the Commission intimated that it would forego The applicant submitted his application after the deadline set
enforcement measures during its own decision-making period. down in the Council’s vacancy notice expired, but before
The applicant regards the Commission’s decision as being at the expiry of the deadline set down in the Commission’s
variance with this. publication. The applicant’s application was rejected by the
Council as inadmissible.

( 1) The applicant has brought an action against that decision (Case


T-239/01 SGL Carbon v Commission, OJ 2002 C 3, p. 34). In support of his action, the applicant alleges breach of the
principle of sound administration. According to the applicant,
there cannot be contradictory decisions within a single admin-
istrative authority and a single legal person, such as constituted
by the European Communities. The applicant claims moreover
that a more recent or more specific act, such as the Com-
mission’s publication, prevails. In the applicant’s view, the
principle of sound administration entails the application of the
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Athanassios interpretation which is most plausible for the official.
Theodorakis against Council of the European Union
The applicant further alleges infringement of Article 29(1) of
(Case T-310/02) the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(3) of Annex III to the
Staff Regulations inasmuch as the same deadline did not apply
to all the potential candidates, irrespective of which institution
(2002/C 305/59)
they belonged to.

(Language of the case: French)


Moreover, the result of applying the deadline in the Council’s
vacancy notice was that officials of the Commission and the
other institutions were discriminated against by comparison
An action against the Council of the European Union was with those of the Council inasmuch as officials at the Council
had more time. Finally, the applicant alleges misuse of powers.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 September 2002 by Athanassios Theodo-
rakis, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by Spyros
A. Pappas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 10 July 2002 of the appointing Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Vitaly Lissot-
authority replying to his complaint of 24.05.2002; schenko and Joachim Hentze against the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and
Designs)
— annul the decision of the appointing authority of the
Council concerning the appointment of the RELEX
Director General of the Council and recommence the (Case T-311/02)
selection procedure as initially requested by the applicant;
(2002/C 305/60)
— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(Language of the case: German)

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal


The applicant is an official in the Commission. He submitted Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) was brought before the
an application for the post of Director General at the Council. Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
That post was published on 25 February 2002 in Vacancy 10 October 2002 by Vitaly Lissotschenko, of Dortmund
Notice 412/02. The same day the Council sent that vacancy (Germany), and Joachim Hentze, of Werl (Germany), represent-
notice to the other institutions. The deadline for submitting ed by B. Hein, Rechtsanwalt.
7.12.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 305/29

The applicants claim that the Court should: Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Lucio Gussetti
against Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision adopted on 31 July 2002 by the


Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation (Case T-312/02)
in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs),
concerning appeal No R 0363/2000-2, in so far as it
rejects the application for registration of the mark ‘Limo’ (2002/C 305/61)
for goods in Class 9, being ‘Lasers for non-medical
purposes, in particular diode lasers, lasers for measuring
technology, lasers for the treatment of materials, lasers (Language of the case: Italian)
for the printing industry, lasers for material testing
and quality control, lasers for data processing or data
transmission; optical and/or electronic apparatus and
instruments, in particular imaging systems, microoptical
systems, control electronics, optical systems with inte- An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
grated electronics and/or light sources; lenses; optical ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
lenses, supplementary lenses, prisms, corrective lenses; European Communities on 10 October 2002 by Lucio Gus-
diffraction apparatus (microscopy)’ and in Class 10, being setti, represented by Massimo Merola, avvocato.
‘Lasers for medical purposes’;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Directorate General Adminis-


tration of the Commission, notified by letter ADMIN B.3
D(02) 8305 of 15 February 2002 by which, pursuant to
Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the Administration,
Pleas in law and main arguments with effect from 1 June 2001, retroactively deducted
EUR 273.48 from his monthly salary;

The Community trade the word mark ‘LIMO’ — appli- — order the Commission to pay the costs.
mark applied for: cation No 1290022

Goods or services: Goods in Classes 9, 10 and 11


(including inter alia lasers for non- Pleas in law and main arguments
medical purposes, lasers for medi-
cal purposes and lighting appar-
atus and installations)
The applicant in the present case is an official working for the
defendant. Pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations,
Decision contested refusal of registration by the EUR 68,48, corresponding to family allowances paid by the
before the Board of examiner Belgian ‘allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés’ scheme
Appeal: to his late wife in respect of their dependant child, was being
deducted from his monthly Community salary.
Decision of the Board of rejection of the application in
Appeal: respect of goods in Classes 9 and
10 and leave for publication of The present case is based on a change, in accordance with the
the application in respect of goods Belgian Law of 12 August 2000, in the practice of the Belgian
in Class 11 authorities consisting in no longer deducting the Communities
orphan’s pension.
Grounds of claim: no absolute bars to registration
under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). In his complaint, the applicant raised the difficulty of consist-
ency between the Communities and Belgian orphan’s pensions,
pointing out that the EUR 68,48 being withheld was not
attributable to family allowances since his late wife was no
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the longer in receipt of them. The defendant was wrong to
Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1). consider the sums paid by the Belgian authorities by way of
orphan’s allowances and those paid by the Communities’
administration to be of like nature within the meaning of
Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. Accordingly, the
deduction in question is per se an error.