# Official Journal C 244/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.244.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 244 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5210 October 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.244.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 244

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5210 October 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2009/C 244/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 233, 26.9.2009 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Justice

2009/C 244/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 233, 26.9.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2009/C 244/02 | Case C-246/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2009 — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH | 2 |
| 2009/C 244/03 | Case C-283/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia (Poland) lodged on 23 July 2009 — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B | 2 |
| 2009/C 244/04 | Case C-312/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio (Cyprus) lodged on 5 August 2009 — Giorgos Michalias v Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia | 3 |
| 2009/C 244/05 | Case C-321/09 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 11 June 2009 in Case T-33/07 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities | 3 |
| | Court of First Instance |
| 2009/C 244/06 | Case T-273/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Associazione 'Giulemanidallajuve v Commission | 4 |
| 2009/C 244/07 | Case T-276/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Kavaklidere-Europe v OHIM — Yakult Honsha (Yakut) | 4 |
| 2009/C 244/08 | Case T-277/09: Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Trasys v Commission | 5 |
| 2009/C 244/09 | Case T-281/09: Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA) | 6 |
| 2009/C 244/10 | Case T-284/09 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2009 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM | 6 |
| 2009/C 244/11 | Case T-289/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH) | 7 |
| 2009/C 244/12 | Case T-290/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE) | 7 |
| 2009/C 244/13 | Case T-292/09: Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Mugraby v Council and Commission | 8 |
| 2009/C 244/14 | Case T-293/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission | 9 |
| 2009/C 244/15 | Case T-301/09: Action brought on 28 July 2009 — IG Communications v OHIM — Citicorp and Citibank (CITIGATE) | 10 |
| 2009/C 244/16 | Case T-302/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission | 10 |
| 2009/C 244/17 | Case T-303/09: Action brought on 3 August 2009 — CIVR and Others v Commission | 11 |
| 2009/C 244/18 | Case T-304/09: Action brought on 31 July 2009 — Tilda Riceland v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE) | 11 |
| 2009/C 244/19 | Case T-305/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Unicid v Commission | 12 |
| 2009/C 244/20 | Case T-306/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Val’hor v Commission | 12 |
| 2009/C 244/21 | Case T-307/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE) | 13 |
| 2009/C 244/22 | Case T-310/09: Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING) | 13 |
| 2009/C 244/23 | Case T-313/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Onidol v Commission | 14 |
| 2009/C 244/24 | Case T-314/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Intercéréales and Grossi v Commission | 14 |
| 2009/C 244/25 | Case T-316/09: Action brought on 11 August 2009 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID) | 15 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2009/C 244/26 | Case F-8/09: Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Apostolov/Commission | 16 |
| 2009/C 244/27 | Case F-52/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice | 16 |
| 2009/C 244/28 | Case F-70/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission | 16 |
| 2009/C 244/29 | Case F-71/09: Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Caminiti v Commission | 17 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2009/C 244/02

Case C-246/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2009 — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

2

2009/C 244/03

Case C-283/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia (Poland) lodged on 23 July 2009 — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B

2

2009/C 244/04

Case C-312/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio (Cyprus) lodged on 5 August 2009 — Giorgos Michalias v Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia

3

2009/C 244/05

Case C-321/09 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 11 June 2009 in Case T-33/07 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

3

Court of First Instance

2009/C 244/06

Case T-273/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Associazione 'Giulemanidallajuve v Commission

4

2009/C 244/07

Case T-276/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Kavaklidere-Europe v OHIM — Yakult Honsha (Yakut)

4

2009/C 244/08

Case T-277/09: Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Trasys v Commission

5

2009/C 244/09

Case T-281/09: Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA)

6

2009/C 244/10

Case T-284/09 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2009 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM

Meister

OHIM

6

2009/C 244/11

Case T-289/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)

7

2009/C 244/12

Case T-290/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE)

7

2009/C 244/13

Case T-292/09: Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Mugraby v Council and Commission

8

2009/C 244/14

Case T-293/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission

9

2009/C 244/15

Case T-301/09: Action brought on 28 July 2009 — IG Communications v OHIM — Citicorp and Citibank (CITIGATE)

10

2009/C 244/16

Case T-302/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission

10

2009/C 244/17

Case T-303/09: Action brought on 3 August 2009 — CIVR and Others v Commission

11

2009/C 244/18

Case T-304/09: Action brought on 31 July 2009 — Tilda Riceland v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

11

2009/C 244/19

Case T-305/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Unicid v Commission

12

2009/C 244/20

Case T-306/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Val’hor v Commission

12

2009/C 244/21

Case T-307/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE)

13

2009/C 244/22

Case T-310/09: Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING)

13

2009/C 244/23

Case T-313/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Onidol v Commission

14

2009/C 244/24

Case T-314/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Intercéréales and Grossi v Commission

14

2009/C 244/25

Case T-316/09: Action brought on 11 August 2009 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID)

15

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2009/C 244/26

Case F-8/09: Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Apostolov/Commission

16

2009/C 244/27

Case F-52/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice

16

2009/C 244/28

Case F-70/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission

16

2009/C 244/29

Case F-71/09: Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Caminiti v Commission

17

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Justice

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/1

---

2009/C 244/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

Past publications

OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2009 — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

(Case C-246/09)

2009/C 244/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Susanne Bulicke

Defendant: Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

Question referred

Does national legislation under which a time-limit of two months from receipt of a rejection of a job application — or by way of interpretation: from knowledge of the discrimination — applies (in the absence of provisions in a collective agreement) to the bringing in writing of a claim for damages and/or compensation based on discrimination in recruitment infringe primary law of the European Community (safeguarding effective legal protection) and/or the Community law prohibition of age discrimination, Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, (1) if three-year limitation periods apply to equivalent claims under national law, and/or the ‘prohibition of regression’ (reduction of protection) under Article 8 of Directive 2000/78/EC, if a previous national provision provided for a longer limitation period for discrimination on grounds of sex?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia (Poland) lodged on 23 July 2009 — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B

(Case C-283/09)

2009/C 244/03

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Artur Weryński

Defendant: Mediatel 4B

Question referred

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, does the requested court have the right to demand from the requesting court an advance for witness expenses or reimbursement of the expenses paid to the witness heard, (1) or must it cover them out of its own financial resources?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio (Cyprus) lodged on 5 August 2009 — Giorgos Michalias v Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia

(Case C-312/09)

2009/C 244/04

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Giorgos Michalias

Respondent: Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia

Question referred

When Articles 2(1), 42 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 are interpreted correctly and applied, do the courts of a Member State of the European Union (Cyprus) have jurisdiction in respect of:

| (a) | divorce proceedings begun by the husband in the courts of State X (Cyprus) in April 2003 after the regulation entered into force on 1 March 2001 but before State X (Cyprus) became a Member State on 1 May 2004 and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

divorce proceedings begun by the husband in the courts of State X (Cyprus) in April 2003 after the regulation entered into force on 1 March 2001 but before State X (Cyprus) became a Member State on 1 May 2004 and

| (b) | divorce proceedings begun by the wife after 1 May 2004 in the courts of another Member State (the United Kingdom) which was a Member State throughout the relevant period, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

divorce proceedings begun by the wife after 1 May 2004 in the courts of another Member State (the United Kingdom) which was a Member State throughout the relevant period,

if both spouses were permanently resident in State Y (the United Kingdom) throughout the relevant period

and both spouses were nationals of State X (Cyprus) throughout the relevant period?

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/3

---

Appeal brought on 10 August 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 11 June 2009 in Case T-33/07 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-321/09 P)

2009/C 244/05

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | uphold this appeal and the grounds of appeal put forward; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold this appeal and the grounds of appeal put forward;

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

| — | uphold the action in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action in part;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic submits:

| 1. | that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of legal certainty, given that, while holding in the judgment under appeal that the bilateral clearance procedure was undoubtedly particularly long — since it began on 9 November 1999 with the first investigation and was completed on 15 December 2006 when the contested decision was published — it considered, however, in the Hellenic Republic’s view mistakenly, that that finding should be qualified given the context of the FEOGA account clearance procedure and held that the principle of legal certainty was not infringed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of legal certainty, given that, while holding in the judgment under appeal that the bilateral clearance procedure was undoubtedly particularly long — since it began on 9 November 1999 with the first investigation and was completed on 15 December 2006 when the contested decision was published — it considered, however, in the Hellenic Republic’s view mistakenly, that that finding should be qualified given the context of the FEOGA account clearance procedure and held that the principle of legal certainty was not infringed;

| 2. | that the judgment under appeal delivered by the Court of First Instance contains incorrect and contradictory reasoning given that, although the Court accepted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1201/89 and that the plea for annulment put forward by the Hellenic Republic was well founded and had to be upheld, it held that the validity of the financial correction was neverthless not affected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

that the judgment under appeal delivered by the Court of First Instance contains incorrect and contradictory reasoning given that, although the Court accepted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1201/89 and that the plea for annulment put forward by the Hellenic Republic was well founded and had to be upheld, it held that the validity of the financial correction was neverthless not affected.

---

Court of First Instance

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/4

---

Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Associazione 'Giulemanidallajuve v Commission

(Case T-273/09)

2009/C 244/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Associazione 'Giulemanidallajuve (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by: L. Misson, G. Ernes and A. Pel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 May 2009 annexed to the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 May 2009 annexed to the present application;

| — | urge the Commission to undertake an enquiry in order to ascertain violations by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in order to:






  — | annul the regulations infringing Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and the sanctions imposed by FIGC, CONI and UEFA on Juventus FC S.p.A. of Turin; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

urge the Commission to undertake an enquiry in order to ascertain violations by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in order to:

—

annul the regulations infringing Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and the sanctions imposed by FIGC, CONI and UEFA on Juventus FC S.p.A. of Turin;

| — | urge FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA to give compensation equivalent to the loss actually suffered by the Association by the fact of the infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by those undertakings and associations of undertakings; |
| --- | --- |

—

urge FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA to give compensation equivalent to the loss actually suffered by the Association by the fact of the infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by those undertakings and associations of undertakings;

| — | order all appropriate penalties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order all appropriate penalties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3916 of 12 May 2009 by which the Commission rejected, as lacking legitimate interest and lacking Community interest, the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged violations of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC committed by the Federazione Italiano Gioco Calcio (FIGC) (Italian National Soccer Federation), the Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI) (Italian National Olympic Committee), the Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) (Union of European Football Associations) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (International Federation of Association Football) in relation to disciplinary measures imposed on Juventus Football Club S.p.A of Turin (‘Juventus’).

In support of its action, the applicant raises a number of pleas in law, alleging:

| — | breach by the Commission of its duty to state reasons and its task of implementing and orienting competition policy, since the Commission has not taken into consideration the factual and legal elements set out in the complaint filed by the applicant, according to which the decisions taken by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA to relegate Juventus to League B of the Italian football championship and to prohibit it from taking part in the Champions League infringe Articles 81 EC and 82 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach by the Commission of its duty to state reasons and its task of implementing and orienting competition policy, since the Commission has not taken into consideration the factual and legal elements set out in the complaint filed by the applicant, according to which the decisions taken by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA to relegate Juventus to League B of the Italian football championship and to prohibit it from taking part in the Champions League infringe Articles 81 EC and 82 EC;

| — | breach of Article 81 EC, since the decisions taken by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA must be regarded as decisions of associations of undertakings which were not purely sport-related decisions and which had the effect of restricting competition in the entirety of the common market, since they harm the interests of consumers of goods and services on the football market and harm the competitive structure of the common market by their effect on Juventus; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of Article 81 EC, since the decisions taken by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA must be regarded as decisions of associations of undertakings which were not purely sport-related decisions and which had the effect of restricting competition in the entirety of the common market, since they harm the interests of consumers of goods and services on the football market and harm the competitive structure of the common market by their effect on Juventus;

| — | abuse of a dominant position by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA in breach of Article 82 EC, in that they took decisions which were discriminatory, disproportionate and harmful to the rights of the defence of Juventus. |
| --- | --- |

—

abuse of a dominant position by FIGC, CONI, UEFA and FIFA in breach of Article 82 EC, in that they took decisions which were discriminatory, disproportionate and harmful to the rights of the defence of Juventus.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/4

---

Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Kavaklidere-Europe v OHIM — Yakult Honsha (Yakut)

(Case T-276/09)

2009/C 244/07

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Kavaklidere-Europe N.V. (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: I.D. Tygat and J.A. Vercraeye, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha (Tokyo, Japan)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 May 2009 in case R 1396/2008-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 May 2009 in case R 1396/2008-4;

| — | Declare that the trade mark ‘Yakut’ should be allowed for registration as a Community trade mark; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the trade mark ‘Yakut’ should be allowed for registration as a Community trade mark; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Yakut’, for goods in class 33

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘Yakult’ for goods in classes 29 and 32; the earlier mark ‘YAKULT’ claimed to be well-known in all the Member States of the European Union for goods in classes 29 and 32; the earlier non-registered trade mark ‘YAKULT’ claimed to be protected in all the Member States of the European Union for goods in classes 29 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its findings that the goods applied for had to be considered similar and that there is a high degree of visual and phonetic similarity between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the Community trade mark concerned takes unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/5

---

Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Trasys v Commission

(Case T-277/09)

2009/C 244/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trasys (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: M. Martens and P. Hermant, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission Decision, notified to the applicant by a letter dated 9 June 2009, rejecting the applicant’s tender for Lots C and E in the call for tender No 10017 and awarding contract to the successful contractors; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Decision, notified to the applicant by a letter dated 9 June 2009, rejecting the applicant’s tender for Lots C and E in the call for tender No 10017 and awarding contract to the successful contractors;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decisions to reject its bid submitted for Lots C and E in response to a call for an open tender for support of the Publications Office and its CORDIS unit in the provision of publishing and communication services (1) and to award the contract to the successful contractor.

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

First, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed the principle of transparency laid down in Articles 100 and 89(1) of the financial regulation (2) by unreasonably limiting access to essential information and in consequence depriving the applicant of the opportunity to gain a proper understanding of the method used to evaluate the tenders and of the reasons why its tender was rejected.

Second, the applicant alleges that its bid has been subject to a tender assessment methodology which is contrary to the principles set out in Article 89(1) of the financial regulation such as the principles of equal treatment and transparency.

Third, it claims that the tender specifications were not clear enough and that the last clarifications were provided too late by the contracting authority and, as a consequence, the applicant was not in the position to plan its tender and to take into account the way in which the assessment would be made.

Fourth, the applicant submits that its bid has been subject to an unreasonable and disproportional evaluation by the contracting authority leading to the errors of assessment which vitiate the final decision.

---

(1)  JO 2008/S 242-321376

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/6

---

Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA)

(Case T-281/09)

2009/C 244/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Frechen, Germany) (represented by J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 8 May 2009, in so far as the application for registration of the mark in respect of the requested goods in Classes 19 and 11 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 8 May 2009, in so far as the application for registration of the mark in respect of the requested goods in Classes 19 and 11 was rejected;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHROMA’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 19 and 37 (Application No 6 731 103)

Decision of the Examiner: Registration rejected in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that the word ‘CHROMA’ has no directly descriptive meaning.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/6

---

Appeal brought on 17 July 2009 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM

(Case T-284/09 P)

2009/C 244/10

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Herbert Meister (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | That the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2009 in Case F-37/08 Meister v OHIM be set aside; |
| --- | --- |

—

That the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2009 in Case F-37/08 Meister v OHIM be set aside;

| — | that OHIM be ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

that OHIM be ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2009 in Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08 Meister v OHIM, in which, inter alia, the appellant’s pleas in Case F-37/08 were rejected.

In support of his appeal, the appellant claims primarily that, the Civil Service Tribunal breached its duty of neutrality and objectivity, that it did not carry out an accurate assessment of the facts of the case but rather a one-sided assessment, and that it distorted the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Civil Service Tribunal is criticised for improper procedural confusion regarding the respective subject-matter of Case F-138/06 and Case F-37/08. In addition, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its judgment on the facts of the case. Lastly, the appellant criticises the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on costs.

The appellant takes the view that the Civil Service Tribunal, by its infringements, also breached its duty to provide lawful grounds for the judgment under appeal.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/7

---

Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)

(Case T-289/09)

2009/C 244/11

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (Heidelberg, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 401/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 401/2008-4; and

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’, for services in class 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that: (a) the trade marks concerned were similar; (b) that there was genuine use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; (c) that the services for which genuine use had been shown were similar; and (d) that, as a consequence, there existed a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/7

---

Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma) (OMNICARE)

(Case T-290/09)

2009/C 244/12

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (Heidelberg, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 402/2008-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2009 in case R 402/2008-4; and

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OMNICARE’, for services in class 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in classes 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that: (a) the trade marks concerned were similar; (b) that there was genuine use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; (c) that the services for which genuine use had been shown were similar; and (d) that, as a consequence, there existed a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/8

---

Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Mugraby v Council and Commission

(Case T-292/09)

2009/C 244/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Muhamad Mugraby (represented by: J. Regouw and L. Spigt, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| 1. | find that the Commission has failed to act on:






  (i) | the applicant’s request that the Commission submit a recommendation to the Council regarding the suspension of Community assistance for Lebanon as set forth in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006, such measures being both required and available under the said regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

find that the Commission has failed to act on:

(i)

the applicant’s request that the Commission submit a recommendation to the Council regarding the suspension of Community assistance for Lebanon as set forth in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006, such measures being both required and available under the said regulation;

| (ii) | the applicant’s request that the Commission, as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, suspend the implementation of these programs pending the resolution of Lebanon’s continuing violation of fundamental rights, more specifically those of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the applicant’s request that the Commission, as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, suspend the implementation of these programs pending the resolution of Lebanon’s continuing violation of fundamental rights, more specifically those of the applicant;

| 2. | find that the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, has failed to act on the applicant’s request to invite the Commission to recommend that the Council take specific and effective measures regarding Union assistance for Lebanon under the Association Agreement between Lebanon and the Community, in order to fulfil the parties' obligations under the Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

2.

find that the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, has failed to act on the applicant’s request to invite the Commission to recommend that the Council take specific and effective measures regarding Union assistance for Lebanon under the Association Agreement between Lebanon and the Community, in order to fulfil the parties' obligations under the Agreement;

| 3. | find that the Community, the Commission, in its function as guardian of the Treaties and as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, and the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, have incurred non-contractual liability for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of their consistent failure from December 2002 onwards to effectively utilise the available resources and instruments towards effective enforcement of the human rights clause in the Association Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

3.

find that the Community, the Commission, in its function as guardian of the Treaties and as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, and the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, have incurred non-contractual liability for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of their consistent failure from December 2002 onwards to effectively utilise the available resources and instruments towards effective enforcement of the human rights clause in the Association Agreement;

| 4. | order the Commission, in part as reparation in kind, to propose to the Council the suspension of the EU-Lebanon Association Agreement, pending the resolution of Lebanon’s failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission, in part as reparation in kind, to propose to the Council the suspension of the EU-Lebanon Association Agreement, pending the resolution of Lebanon’s failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to the applicant;

| 5. | order the Commission to limit the performance of current assistance programs (which are carried out and/or supervised by the Commission) to those programs that are aimed specifically at promoting fundamental rights and which do not constitute financial aid to the Lebanese authorities, pending the resolution of Lebanon’s failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

5.

order the Commission to limit the performance of current assistance programs (which are carried out and/or supervised by the Commission) to those programs that are aimed specifically at promoting fundamental rights and which do not constitute financial aid to the Lebanese authorities, pending the resolution of Lebanon’s failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to the applicant;

| 6. | order the Council to invite the Commission to make a recommendation as outlined under (4) above, and to act through the institutions of the Association Agreement to the same end; |
| --- | --- |

6.

order the Council to invite the Commission to make a recommendation as outlined under (4) above, and to act through the institutions of the Association Agreement to the same end;

| 7. | order the defendants to compensate the applicant’s material and moral damages, in an amount to be fixed ex aequo et bono at not less than EUR 5 000 000 and to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

7.

order the defendants to compensate the applicant’s material and moral damages, in an amount to be fixed ex aequo et bono at not less than EUR 5 000 000 and to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, Dr Muhammad Mugraby, a Lebanese human rights lawyer and activist, claims to have suffered persecution, harassment and denial of justice, by the Lebanese authorities, because of his work in defence of human rights. He has allegedly been denied the right to practise law and has been deprived from a number of fundamental rights, such as the right to private property, to a fair hearing and the access to an effective judicial remedy.

The applicant submits that on the basis of Article 2 of the EU-Lebanon Association agreement (1), the Community should take reasonable care to prevent damages being caused by the Lebanon against individuals such as the applicant, by imposing restrictive measures against the Lebanese authorities, such as the suspension of the Association Agreement. In fact, the applicant claims that the benefits made available to Lebanon under the Association Agreement are conditional on compliance with the obligation to respect fundamental human rights and that in the event of persistent breaches of human rights, Article 2 of the Agreement serves to enable the Community to take restrictive measures against Lebanon in proportion to the gravity of the breaches. Meanwhile, the applicant claims that to this date, the Community has failed to exert any effective pressure on the Lebanese authorities to take their obligations to uphold human rights.

The applicant contends that he has formally called upon the defendants to act on 29 April 2009, while the defendants denied its request by letters of 26 May 2009 and 29 May 2009. The applicant relies on the human rights clause contained in Article 2 of the Association Agreement in order to establish the unlawfulness of the Commission’s and the Council’s consistent failure to effectively enforce the human rights clause against Lebanon.

Moreover, the applicant claims that the defendants have violated general principles of Community law, including the obligation to promote respect of its fundamental rights, which aim to protect the rights of individuals. He submits that there is a direct causal link between the defendant’s breach of their obligation and the damages that he has suffered and that he is thus entitled to compensation. According to the applicant, the Lebanese authorities would have most likely ceased their unlawful harassment towards the applicant, had they been faced with the alternative of losing access to Community assistance. Hence, he submits that the damages amounting to loss of income suffered by the applicant would have probably not occurred to the same extent, had the defendants acted in a timely and appropriate manner.

---

(1)  Interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part (OJ 2002 L 262, p. 2)

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/9

---

Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission

(Case T-293/09)

2009/C 244/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre National Interprofessionnel de l'Économie Laitière (CNIEL) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Cabanes and V. Kostrzewski-Pugnat, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 10 December 2008 in Case N 561/2008 — France (Actions by interprofessional organisations); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 10 December 2008 in Case N 561/2008 — France (Actions by interprofessional organisations);

| — | in the alternative, order the Commission to institute the formal procedure to review the aid laid down in Article 88(2) EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the Commission to institute the formal procedure to review the aid laid down in Article 88(2) EC;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

In support of its action, the applicant advances three pleas in law, alleging:

| — | manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 87(1) EC, since CVLs do not constitute State resources and since the measures adopted cannot be attributed to the State and do not give rise to any advantage for the final beneficiaries; |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 87(1) EC, since CVLs do not constitute State resources and since the measures adopted cannot be attributed to the State and do not give rise to any advantage for the final beneficiaries;

| — | breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission has not indicated its reasons for finding that the CVLs constitute State resources or how trade between Member States is affected or competition distorted; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission has not indicated its reasons for finding that the CVLs constitute State resources or how trade between Member States is affected or competition distorted;

| — | breach of Article 88(3) EC in that the Commission failed to institute the formal review procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC despite the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the nature of the framework system at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of Article 88(3) EC in that the Commission failed to institute the formal review procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC despite the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the nature of the framework system at issue.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/10

---

Action brought on 28 July 2009 — IG Communications v OHIM — Citicorp and Citibank (CITIGATE)

(Case T-301/09)

2009/C 244/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: IG Communications Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Beard, Solicitor and M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. (New York, United States)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2009 in case R 821/2005-1 in its entirety, or alternatively in part; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2009 in case R 821/2005-1 in its entirety, or alternatively in part; and

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CITIGATE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITI’ for services in class 36; Community trade mark application of the figurative mark ‘citi’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITICORP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGROUP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBOND’ for goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 38; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIEQUITY’ for goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGARANT’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITICARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGOLD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for services in class 36; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for services in class 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘THE CITI NEVER SLEEPS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a family of earlier trade marks and, as a consequence, that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 8(5) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a family of earlier trade marks and, as a consequence, that there was a conflict between the trade marks concerned.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/10

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission

(Case T-302/09)

2009/C 244/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Comité national interprofessionnel de la pomme de terre (CNIPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) to be taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

In addition, the applicant submits that there is a breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the Commission dealt in generally and in the same way with a number of distinct CVL schemes.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/11

---

Action brought on 3 August 2009 — CIVR and Others v Commission

(Case T-303/09)

2009/C 244/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Conseil interprofessionnel des vins du Roussillon — CIVR (Perpignan, France), Comité national des interprofessions des vins à appellation d’origine et à indication géographique — CNIV (Paris, France), Interprofession nationale porcine — Inaporc (Paris) and Others (Perpignan, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and Y. Trifounovitch, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 10 December 2008 State aid N 561/2008 — France — Actions led by inter-branch organisations, C(2008) 7846 final, (1) inasmuch as it found the actions led by the agricultural inter-branch organisations in technical assistance, production and marketing aid for quality products, research and development and marketing to be State aid and inasmuch as it found compulsory voluntary levies used to finance those actions to be State resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 10 December 2008 State aid N 561/2008 — France — Actions led by inter-branch organisations, C(2008) 7846 final, (1) inasmuch as it found the actions led by the agricultural inter-branch organisations in technical assistance, production and marketing aid for quality products, research and development and marketing to be State aid and inasmuch as it found compulsory voluntary levies used to finance those actions to be State resources;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission had found that the framework scheme of actions liable to be carried out by the French agricultural inter-branch organisations, consisting in aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing for quality products, for research and development and marketing for primary producers and undertakings engaged in processing and marketing agricultural products, financed through voluntary levies made compulsory by inter-ministerial decree, to be collected from the members of those inter-branch organisations, were a measure constituting State aid compatible with the common market.

The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2009, C 116, p. 14.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/11

---

Action brought on 31 July 2009 — Tilda Riceland v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

(Case T-304/09)

2009/C 244/18

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Tilda Riceland Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Sills and N. Urwin, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siam Grains Company Limited (Bangkok, Thailand)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 2009 in case R 513/2008-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 2009 in case R 513/2008-1; and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE’, for goods in class 30

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: A non-registered trade mark of the word ’BASMATI” used for rice and a sign consisting of the word ‘BASMATI’ used in the course of trade designating a class of goods, namely rice

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly based its decision solely upon an interpretation of the provision which fails to take into account national rules and judicial decisions delivered in the Member State concerned; secondly, the Board of Appeal failed to apply the law of a Member State, namely the United Kingdom, in relation to the form of action known as the ‘extended form of passing off’; thirdly, the Board of Appeal erred in requiring that the applicant must hold proprietary rights to the sign ‘BASMATI’; finally, the Board of Appeal erred in holding that the word ‘BASMATI’ is generic.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/12

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Unicid v Commission

(Case T-305/09)

2009/C 244/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union nationale interprofessionnelle cidricole (Unicid) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008, (1) by which the Commission found that the framework for actions liable to be carried out by French inter-branch organisations, consisting in aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing for quality products, for research and development and marketing for primary producers and undertakings engaged in processing and marketing agricultural products, financed through voluntary levies made compulsory by inter-ministerial decree, to be collected from the members of those inter-branch organisations, were a measure constituting State aid compatible with the common market.

The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission and Case T-302/09 CNIPT v Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/12

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Val’hor v Commission

(Case T-306/09)

2009/C 244/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Val’hor (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008 in which the Commission found that the umbrella scheme likely to be run by the inter-branch organisations of French farmers (organisations interprofessionnelles agricoles françaises), consisting in aids for technical assistance; for the production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products; for research and development, and for advertising which promotes primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by ministerial decree, levied on members of those inter-branch organisations, constitutes State aid which is compatible with the common market.

The pleas and principal submissions relied upon the by the applicant are substantially the same as, or similar to, those put forward in the context of Cases T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission, and T-302/09 CNIPT v Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/13

---

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE)

(Case T-307/09)

2009/C 244/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd (Ryde, United Kingdom) (represented by M. Cover, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 May 2009 in case R 27/2009-2 and declare that the Community trade mark concerned can proceed to publication and registration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 May 2009 in case R 27/2009-2 and declare that the Community trade mark concerned can proceed to publication and registration; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NATURALLY ACTIVE’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 16, 18, 35 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the phrase ‘Naturally Active’ was normal in the English language and was therefore a laudatory term that could be easily understood by the general public, thus having no inherent distinctiveness; infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal: (i) was incorrect to find that the trade mark concerned had not become distinctive through use; and (ii) appears to have not given due weight to the objective evidence provided by the applicant and therefore did not have good and adequate reasons for their finding in relation to this legal provision; infringement of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal was wrong to apply the test for this legal provision, in relation to their findings for Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94, to all Member States of the EU, instead of applying the relevant test only to Member States which are predominantly English speaking.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/13

---

Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING)

(Case T-310/09)

2009/C 244/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. (San Mateo, United States) (represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2009 in case R 323/2008-G; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2009 in case R 323/2008-G; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 36

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal (i) erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the mark, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods and services in question; (ii) failed to establish facts of its own motion that would show that the Community trade mark concerned was descriptive to the relevant public, even though it correctly concluded that the relevant public was specialised; and (iii) failed to take account of the public interest that underlies this ground for refusal and failed to establish on the evidence that there was, in the relevant specialised sphere, a reasonable likelihood that other traders in that sphere would wish to use the Community trade mark concerned in the future.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/14

---

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Onidol v Commission

(Case T-313/09)

2009/C 244/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Organisation nationale interprofessionnelle des graines et fruits oléagineux (Onidol) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret et L. Olza Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final () of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

| — | The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/14

---

Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Intercéréales and Grossi v Commission

(Case T-314/09)

2009/C 244/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Intercéréales (Paris, France) and Alain Grossi (Nîmes, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and L. Olza Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008 in which the Commission found that the umbrella scheme likely to be run by the inter-branch organisations of French farmers (organisations interprofessionnelles agricoles françaises), consisting in aids for technical assistance; for the production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products; for research and development, and for advertising which promotes primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by way of ministerial decree, levied on members of those inter-branch organisations, constitutes State aid which is compatible with the common market.

The pleas and principal submissions relied upon by the applicants are substantially the same as, or similar to, those put forward in the context of Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/15

---

Action brought on 11 August 2009 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID)

(Case T-316/09)

2009/C 244/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Google, Inc. (Mountain View, United States) (represented by A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Auxiliarily, the applicant requests to:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2 with regard to the goods ‘computer hardware and computer software for use in connection with mobile devices, namely cell phones, mobile phones, smart phones and handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs)’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2 with regard to the goods ‘computer hardware and computer software for use in connection with mobile devices, namely cell phones, mobile phones, smart phones and handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs)’; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings insofar. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings insofar.

Auxiliarily, the applicant requests to:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2 and remit the case to OHIM for further examination of the list of goods ‘computer hardware and computer software for use in connection with mobile devices, namely cell phones, mobile phones, smart phones and handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs)’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2 and remit the case to OHIM for further examination of the list of goods ‘computer hardware and computer software for use in connection with mobile devices, namely cell phones, mobile phones, smart phones and handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs)’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANDROID’ for goods in class 9

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the trade mark applied for was descriptive for the goods at issue and thus could not be registered; infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred by not proceeding to examine the perception of the English speaking public with respect to the applicability of this provision.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/16

---

Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Apostolov/Commission

(Case F-8/09)

2009/C 244/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Svetoslav Apostolov (Saarwellingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Schneider-Addaeh-Mensah, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Community

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 23 October 2008 which rejects the complaint of the applicant contesting the decision to exclude him from the open competition EPSO/CAST27/4/07.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission dated 23 October 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission dated 23 October 2008;

| — | oblige the European Commission and their specialized services, mainly the European community Personnel selection Office (EPSO), to count the answers given by the applicant to questions 9, 30 and 32 of the competency test of 14.12.2007 as correct; |
| --- | --- |

—

oblige the European Commission and their specialized services, mainly the European community Personnel selection Office (EPSO), to count the answers given by the applicant to questions 9, 30 and 32 of the competency test of 14.12.2007 as correct;

| — | in the alternative, allow the applicant to pass again the competency test; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, allow the applicant to pass again the competency test;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/16

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice

(Case F-52/09)

2009/C 244/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Delfina Da Silva Pinto Branco (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Erniquin, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant. Next, application for the applicant to be established as an official or to be reinstated in her post as a probationary official. Lastly, application for damages for non-pecuniary losses suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 24 October 2008 and the opinion of the Reports Committee dated 8 October 2008, the two probationary period reports established by the assessor, dated 22 February 2008 and 10 June 2008, respectively, and also the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 18 April 2008 to extend the probationary period; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 24 October 2008 and the opinion of the Reports Committee dated 8 October 2008, the two probationary period reports established by the assessor, dated 22 February 2008 and 10 June 2008, respectively, and also the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 18 April 2008 to extend the probationary period;

| — | establish the applicant as an official as from 1 March 2008, and also grant her entitlement to compensation corresponding to the difference between the remuneration she would have received had she been established as an official on 1 March 2008 and the emoluments she has actually received as from that date until the date of judgment; otherwise, in the alternative, reinstate the applicant in her functions as a probationary official either in the same unit where she was prior to her dismissal or in another unit in the institution in order that she may complete a fresh probationary period; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish the applicant as an official as from 1 March 2008, and also grant her entitlement to compensation corresponding to the difference between the remuneration she would have received had she been established as an official on 1 March 2008 and the emoluments she has actually received as from that date until the date of judgment; otherwise, in the alternative, reinstate the applicant in her functions as a probationary official either in the same unit where she was prior to her dismissal or in another unit in the institution in order that she may complete a fresh probationary period;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 5 000 by way of damages for non-pecuniary losses suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 5 000 by way of damages for non-pecuniary losses suffered;

| — | order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/16

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Nikolchov v Commission

(Case F-70/09)

2009/C 244/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Nikolchov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Hammouche, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement fixing the applicant’s place of recruitment at Aix-la-Chapelle (Germany) and fixing the period of daily allowance at 120 days.

Form of order sought

| — | declare that there has been an infringement of the Commission decision of 15 April 2004 adopting the General implementing provisions for giving effect to Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there has been an infringement of the Commission decision of 15 April 2004 adopting the General implementing provisions for giving effect to Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | consequently, order the annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement No R/9/09 of 21 April 2009 dismissing the applicant’s claim seeking the fixing of his place of recruitment in Bulgaria and fixing the period of daily allowance in accordance with Article 10(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement No R/9/09 of 21 April 2009 dismissing the applicant’s claim seeking the fixing of his place of recruitment in Bulgaria and fixing the period of daily allowance in accordance with Article 10(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant unpaid daily allowance amounts totalling EUR 6 942,32, or any other amount fixed by the Court of First Instance, in addition to default interest as from the date of the lodging of the application until the date of payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant unpaid daily allowance amounts totalling EUR 6 942,32, or any other amount fixed by the Court of First Instance, in addition to default interest as from the date of the lodging of the application until the date of payment;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/17

---

Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Caminiti v Commission

(Case F-71/09)

2009/C 244/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paolo Caminiti (Tubize, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application to annul the defendant’s decision to classify the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 4, with a multiplication factor equal to 1 and, consequently, the reinstatement of the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 2, retaining a multiplication factor of 1.071151.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision to classify the applicant in grade AST 9, step 4, with a multiplication factor equal to 1 contained in the applicant’s salary slip of March 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to classify the applicant in grade AST 9, step 4, with a multiplication factor equal to 1 contained in the applicant’s salary slip of March 2009;

| — | consequently, reinstate the applicant, with effect from 1 March 2009, in Grade AST 9, step 2, retaining a multiplication factor of 1.071151; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, reinstate the applicant, with effect from 1 March 2009, in Grade AST 9, step 2, retaining a multiplication factor of 1.071151;

| — | order the full restructuring of the applicant’s career with retroactive effect from 1 March 2009 to the date of his classification in grade and step as thus corrected (including the valuation of his experience in his classification as thus corrected, his rights of advancement to a higher step and his pension rights), which includes the payment of default interest at the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points, on all the sums corresponding to his classification as set out in the classification decision and the classification to which he should have been entitled until the date on which the decision on his corrected classification is taken; in the alternative, order the applicant to be granted promotion points corresponding to the conversion of the multiplication factor to a ‘time’ factor; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the full restructuring of the applicant’s career with retroactive effect from 1 March 2009 to the date of his classification in grade and step as thus corrected (including the valuation of his experience in his classification as thus corrected, his rights of advancement to a higher step and his pension rights), which includes the payment of default interest at the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points, on all the sums corresponding to his classification as set out in the classification decision and the classification to which he should have been entitled until the date on which the decision on his corrected classification is taken; in the alternative, order the applicant to be granted promotion points corresponding to the conversion of the multiplication factor to a ‘time’ factor;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---