Case T-106/01: Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action for annulment (EU), servant (EU), transfer of pension rights

C 227/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal ignored
the fact that the conflicting
mark consisted not of the term
‘miss fifties’ but of a word and
pictorial mark, containing a
great variety of word and pic-
torial components.

— There was no conceptual con-
nection between ‘Fifties’ and
‘miss fifties’.

becoming established on 1 April 1985. The applicant conse-
quently pleads infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to
the Staff Regulations and breach of the general provisions for
the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines S.A.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-107/01)

(2001/C 227/47)

Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum
against the Council of the European Union

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-106/01)

(2001/C 227/46)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum, residing
in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique
Peere, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council’s decision of 8 June 2000 fixing the
calculation of the number of years of pensionable service
with which he is to be credited pursuant to Article 11(2)
of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations following the
transfer to the Community pension scheme of
the
pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry
into service;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant disputes the salary taken into consideration by
the Council when calculating the number of years of pension-
able service to be credited to him following the transfer of the
pension rights acquired by him prior to his entry into service.
According to the applicant, the Council should have taken
into consideration the salary received by him upon his entry
into service on 1 November 1983, initially as a member of the
auxiliary staff and subsequently as a member of the temporary
staff, and not the salary corresponding to his grade upon

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines
S.A., a mining company established at Puteaux (France),
represented by Geneviève Marty, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implicit decision of 21 April 2001 by which
the Commission refused to uphold the complaint lodged
by the mining company Sacilor Lormines S.A. and
registered on 21 February 2001 under No SG 01 A/2321;

— in the alternative, annul

the decision of 30 March
2001 by which the Commission refused to uphold
the complaint lodged by the mining company Sacilor
Lormines S.A. and registered on 21 February 2001 under
No SG 01 A/2321;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

By letter of 30 March 2001, the Commission refused to
uphold the applicant’s complaint requesting the opening of a
procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty against the
French Government. In support of its action for a declaration
of failure to act and for annulment, the applicant pleads
infringement by the Commission of Article 88 of the ECSC
Treaty. According to the applicant, the French Government
has infringed Articles 4(c) and 86 of the ECSC Treaty by
imposing special charges on the applicant. This constitutes, it
claims, an unlawful act against which the Commission should
have taken action in accordance with Article 88 of the ECSC
Treaty. In addition, the applicant pleads, in the context of its
action for annulment, breach of the essential procedural
requirements of the decision of 30 March 2001 and violation
of the principle of sound administration.