Case T-353/00: Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against European Parliament
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, France, Member of Parliament, action for annulment (EU), parliamentary election, penalty

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/27

— The Registry may serve documents by fax or e-mail,
provided that the lawyer or agent concerned has agreed
to service being effected in that way.

— the promotions were decided upon in the absence
of any staff report on the applicant or of any other
document to palliate its absence;

— Where the lawyer or agent has agreed to service being
effected in that way, the statement of an address for
service in Luxembonrg is optional.

— There is to be a single, uniform ten-day extension of the
time-limit on account of distance, regardless of
the
location of the party concerned.

Practice directions concerning the detailed implementation of
these amendments will be issued and promulgated in due
course.

— the applicant’s merits were erroneously assessed; and

— the promotions procedure is vitiated by the fact that
it was based on reports drawn up on the basis of a
system of awarding points which disregards the
‘Guide de la notation’.

Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huy-
gens against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-351/00)

(2001/C 28/49)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 November 2000 by Hubert
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie
Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1
in the 2000 promotions procedure;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le
Pen against European Parliament

(Case T-353/00)

(2001/C 28/50)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing in St Cloud
(France), represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested measure null and void;

— award the applicant FRF 50 000 in non-returnable dam-

ages;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and
breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as no
reasons have been provided for the contested decision.

— Infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-
ment and sound administration, inasmuch as:

The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP),
contests the decision taken by the President of the European
Parliament on 23 October 2000 taking note, in accordance
with Article 12(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning
the election of representatives to the European Parliament by
direct universal suffrage, of the notification from the French
Government of the termination of the term of office of Jean-
Marie Le Pen as MEP. That decision was taken after he was
found guilty of a criminal offence by a French criminal court.

C 28/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

In support of his application the applicant alleges that:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— there is nothing in the Act of 20 September 1976 or in
the Rules of Procedure of
the European Parliament
permitting the Member States to terminate, for national
reasons, the term of office of an MEP, other than in cases
of incompatibilities arising during the term of office,
which is not the case here;

— such a measure is all the more contrary to the principles
of Community law inasmuch as it is the result of an
entirely national decision, which cannot by itself be the
basis for a Community decision;

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in Case
R 142/2000-3,

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— there is a general legal principle based on the generally
applicable rules of law of the Member States which means
that termination must be decided by the parliamentary
assembly concerned itself;

Mark:

Goods or services:

— the substantive procedural rules have been disregarded in
the present case inasmuch as the Legal Affairs Committee
was not convened and the applicant was not given a
hearing by that committee;

— in the contested measure, the President of the European
Parliament purportedly spoke on behalf of the Parliament
when she did not have the authority to do so.

Finally,
parliamentary immunity and legal certainty.

the applicant alleges breach of

the principles of

Decision
beforethe
Appeal:

contested
of

Board

Pleas in law:

Word mark ‘TELE AID’ — Appli-
cation No 469 957

Goods and services in Classes 12,
9, 37, 38, 39 and 42 (including
motor vehicles, motor vehicle
repair, equipment for the trans-
mission of speech and data, emer-
gency call
for motor
systems
vehicles, breakdown assistance,
rescue services)

Refusal by the examiner to register

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-355/00)

(2001/C 28/51)

(Case T-356/00)

(2001/C 28/52)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart,
Germany, represented by Stefan Völker of Gleiss Lutz Hootz
Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, of Stuttgart
(Germany), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of
Messrs Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,
Germany.