24.8.2002 EN C 202/31 Official Journal of the European Communities
— order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 % The applicant claims that the Court should:
with effect from 26 January 1988, the date of theaccident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73 — annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for
of the Staff Regulations; the year 2001;
— make an order for damages in the amount of— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
non-material damage which the contested decision caused
to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and asPleas in law and main argumentsequitable compensation for the non-material damage;
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.The applicant, an employee of the defendant, seeks the
annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
Pleas in law and main arguments because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal onfactual allegations which the applicant contests and which willFollowing the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation toimpair his future career development.giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from totalThe applicant claims that, under the provisions on datapermanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.protection, the defendant is prohibited from relying on
electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data. The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her
Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73
it is based on incorrect factual information. of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of theMedical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to beregarded as accidental.
Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba LautexGmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the CommissionAccordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendantof the European Communitiesinfringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore, (Case T-181/02)
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.(2002/C 202/52)
(Language of the Case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June the European Central Bank
2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,(Case T-179/02)with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(2002/C 202/51)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Language of the case: German)
— Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba An action against the European Central Bank was brought
Lautex GmbH in liquidation; before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,lawyer. — Order the defendant to pay the costs.
C 202/32 EN 24.8.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Pleas and main arguments Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon
Tsetis Farmakeftika Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhanikikai Emboriki Eteria against Office for the Harmonization
in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the
Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a(Case T-182/02)group said to comprise Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation
and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH aid amounting in total to
(2002/C 202/53) EUR 7 834 million.
(Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the Commission was incorrect in its
finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH constituted a
unit or group of undertakings and that therefore the ability to An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
approve rescue and restructuring aid could only be assessed in Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
favour of the group, that the Deggendorf doctrine was to be the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
applied and the aid was to be claimed back from both members 10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon Tsetis Farmakeftika
of the group. The Commission’s Decision is said to be based Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emboriki Eteria, whose
on the erroneous finding that the applicant’s case did not registered office is in Kato Kifissia, Attiki (Greece), represented
constitute a residual arrangement under the terms of the by Eleni Gioti-Manthou and Maria Bra.
exception provided for in footnote 10 of the Guidelines (
1). By
not applying that exceptional provision the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should: infringed the principle of equal treatment and provided no
objective reason for the unequal treatment.
— find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the
marks in question;
The applicant maintains that the Commission’s finding that — annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of
the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH were to be deemed to Appeal of 27 February 2002;
constitute a group was erroneous since the applicant is
controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by the liquidator. In — order the Office to pay the costs of all the proceedings,
consequence of the erroneous assumptions made by the including lawyers’ fees incurred by the applicant.
Commission the contested decision was already unlawful and
liable to be set aside for breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in
conjunction with the Guidelines.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the alternative the applicant maintains that the CommissionApplicant for the Com- The applicantwrongly classified the relevant measure as aid or, in themunity trade mark:alternative, assumed a level of aid intensity greater than was
the case. In addition, in finding that the decision of 1999 toThe Community trade Word mark ‘Apotel’ in respect ofclaim repayment of aid concerning Erba Lautex GmbH hadmark concerned: certain goods in Class 5 (anal-not been complied with, the Commission manifestly erred ingesics and antipyretics) — appli-its findings of facts in that regard.cation No 613554
Proprietor of the right to Biofarma (previously Orsem)
the trade mark or signFurthermore, the applicant is claiming that the Commissionasserted by way of oppo-committed errors of assessment and infringed essential formalsition in the oppositionrequirements. It infringed the duty to provide a statement ofproceedings:reasons and the Federal Government’s right to be heard.
Finally, the Commission misused its discretion in adopting theTrade mark or sign National and international wordcontested decision and infringed the right to administration inasserted by way of oppo- mark ‘Aportex’ in respect of cer-accordance with the rules.sition in the opposition tain goods in Class 5 (pharmaceu-
proceedings: tical products for the prevention
and/or treatment of the meno-pause)
(1) Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).
Decision of the Oppo- Dismissal of entire opposition
sition Division:
Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division