Case T-372/00: Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Mário Campolargo against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade Mark concerned:

Word mark ‘UltraPlus’ — Appli-
cation No. 716597

Product or Service:

Class 21 (plastic ovenware for
use in microwave, convection and
conventional ovens)

Contested
before
Appeal:

Decision
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Pleas in law relied on:

Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)
and (c) of Regulation 40/94.

The applicant in this case, the same as in Case T-91/00 (1),
challenges the refusal of the Settlements Office of the Joint
Sickness Insurance Scheme in Luxembourg to reimburse sums
incurred by him in the first half of the year 2000, on care
services needed by one of his sons, as assistance by medical
auxiliaries within the meaning of Paragraph 1 of Title X of
Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance. The Settlements
Office authorised those services only as nursing attendance
within the meaning of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of those rules.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
raised in Case T-91/00.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 24.

Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo Kind
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Ma´rio Campo-
largo against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-362/00)

(2001/C 45/48)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo
Kind, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the measures

erroneous application of
adopted;

challenged for unlawful
the system of

and
repayment

(Case T-372/00)

(2001/C 45/49)

(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 11 December 2000 by Ma´rio
Campolargo, residing at Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the appointing authority’s decision of 15 February
2000 annulling the appointment of the applicant as head
of the former unit DG XIII/G/2 and his promotion to
grade A3, and the appointing authority’s implicit decision
of 12 September 2000 giving a negative response to the
complaint submitted by the applicant;

— order the Commission to carry out settlement, as in the
past, on the basis of invoices in respect of expenses for
paramedical assistance produced by the insured;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— order

the defendant

to pay the costs pursuant

to
Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance and the expenses necessarily incurred for
the purposes of the proceedings, in particular the travel
and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of law-
yers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of those Rules.

C 45/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claims that the Court should:

The applicant states that he was informed in August 1999 of
his appointment to the post of head of unit DG XIII/G/2 and
of his promotion to grade A3, but that the Director-General
for Personnel announced to him in February 2000 that he had
decided to annul those decisions in the light of a complaint
submitted by an official who had also applied for the post in
question. In the present proceedings, the applicant contests
that decision withdrawing his appointment and promotion.

He maintains that the decision which has been withdrawn:

— was not adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations of officials or of vacancy notices 07 of
2 February 2000, inasmuch as those rules were scrupu-
lously observed, having regard to the seniority criteria
needing to be fulfilled in order to qualify for promotion;

— was not adopted on the basis of any manifest error of
assessment in the examination of the comparative merits
and staff reports of the candidates, or in breach of any of
the vacancy notices in issue; and

— is not vitiated by any misuse of powers on the part of the

appointing authority.

In addition, as regards the contested decision, the applicant
pleads:

— infringement of the right to a fair hearing;

— infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of

reasons;

— infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-

imate expectations; and

— infringement of the principles of equal treatment, pro-

portionality and sound administration.

— annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
request submitted by Ms Dubigh on 24 September 1999
for the regularisation of her administrative situation by
the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary agent
from 12 May 1997 and the conferment on her of the
rights attaching thereto;

— annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
request submitted by Ms Zaur-Gora on 24 September
1999 for the regularisation of her administrative situation
by the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary
agent from 22 May 1997 and the conferment on her of
the rights attaching thereto;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants state that, since 12 May and 22 May 1997
respectively, they have performed, without interruption, the
same duties as secretaries/typists in the same units, working
successively as members of the interim staff and as members
of the auxiliary staff. In their view, the formal nature of the
contracts and the classification applied to them by the parties
had no effect on the de facto circumstances.

Thus, the tasks carried out by the applicants are characterised
by their continuity; the duties performed by them have been
of a permanent nature.

In support of their claims, the applicants plead infringement
of the principles of sound administration and proper staff
management, together with a misuse of powers in the present
case.

Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Danielle Dubigh
and Tamara Zaur-Gora against the Commission of the
European Communities

Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-
ello against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-375/00)

(2001/C 45/50)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-378/00)

(2001/C 45/51)

(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 11 December 2000 by Danielle
Dubigh, residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, residing
at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.