Case T-100/01: Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), anti-discriminatory measure, civil servant, fundamental rights, sexual discrimination

C 227/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

Grounds of claim:

— Misapplication

of Article
8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1)
(likelihood of
confusion)

different

— the opposing signs are sub-
stantially
typo-
graphically, conceptually and
in their sound, and the rel-
evant goods are dissimilar.

the applicant was allocated a post which in her view is
considerably less important and offers considerably fewer
the
promotion prospects. According to the applicant,
principles laid down in Article 141 EC had been implemented
in due time and in full, she ought to have obtained the post of
principal departmental manager for ‘Personnel and Adminis-
tration’. She submits that she has thereby suffered substantial
material and non-material harm and that, in her case, her
employer has since 1994 committed all breaches of fundamen-
tal and human rights, without legal consequences, on the basis
of the employer’s ‘organisational freedom’.

if

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

She contends that, when requests are made before national
courts for an order for reference under Article 234 EC, a
hearing in accordance with the law is refused. All the judicial
proceedings brought by the applicant in respect of European
fundamental rights have terminated at first instance since leave
to appeal has likewise been refused. Her constitutional appeals
have not been accepted for determination, without any reasons
being given. In the applicant’s submission, there has been no
review of the breaches of fundamental rights arising from the
Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union.

The applicant contends that the material legal provisions in
the Federal Republic of Germany require proof of individual
fault on the part of the civil servant acting as a precondition for
claims for damages against public authorities. Compensation is
therefore not payable to civil servants without proof of special
damage in the case of breaches of fundamental rights arising
from the Treaty on European Union.

She relies on Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty on European
Union, in conjunction with the Social Charter and the Charter
of Fundamental Rights, and on provisions of Council Directive
75/117, and submits that the Commission has not complied
with its obligation to monitor implementation of Union law
and of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in
national German law. The Commission did not act when called
on to do so by the applicant pursuant to Article 232 EC and
has not responded to the substance of her complaint.

She pleads various situations as examples of infringements of
fundamental rights and discrimination at the workplace, as
well as of discrimination against women.

Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-100/01)

(2001/C 227/43)

(Language of the Case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber,
Osterhofen (Germany), represented by Christoph Blecken-
wegner, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to
the second and third paragraphs of the EC Treaty, in
conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of
the Treaty of Amsterdam, by supervising incorrectly the
implementation and application of European legal rules
into German national law;

— declare that the Commission has failed to define its
position on the substance of her call on it to act pursuant
to the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, in
conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of
the Treaty of Amsterdam;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant has worked since 1986 as a federal civil servant
in the Straßenneubauamt (New Highway Construction Office)
Bad Kreuznach in the service of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz. In
1994 that office was amalgamated with the Straßenneubauver-
waltung (New Highway Construction Administration) Bad
Kreuznach and, on the allocation of posts in the new office,