Case T-193/01: Action brought on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre Allo against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

C 303/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

— bioclimatic

architecture
DIS/0161/95-BE contract);

(Solaire

Bioclimatique

— Biomasse combustion (Biomasse SME/1539/97-BE con-

tract);

European Communities on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre
Allo, resident
in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

— wind energy technology (Windenergy SME-0792-96/BE

contract);

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— energy saving in respect of road transport (Transport

DIS/1178/97-BE contract); and

— photovoltaic

solar

technology

(Photovoltaic

SME/1883/198-EU contract).

— annul the Commission decision of 26 October 2000 in
that it deprived the applicant of a middle-management
post and reassigned him to the post of Adviser ad
personam in the RELEX G1 ‘Horizontal matters’ unit;

Furthermore, in the context of the Altener II Programme for
the dissemination of information on renewable energy, the
Commission entrusted to the applicant the task of creating
an Agores Internet site containing information about, and
promoting the use of renewable forms of energy, and a ‘link’
to all sites providing information concerning renewable forms
of energy.

The present application is founded on:

— the suspension of the final payments under the Biomasse
and Windenergy contracts, following an audit carried out
by the Commission;

— the unilateral termination of the Photovoltic contract,
after two years and five months’ performance of the
contract and the demand for reimbursement of
the
advance of 36 000 Euros;

— the termination of the Transport contract and the demand
for reimbursement of the advance of 36 000 Euros;

— the suspension of payment of the balance of 68 070 Euros

allegedly owed in respect of the Agores contract.

its claims,

In support of
the
Commission’s decisions giving rise to the present action have
no legislative, legal or contractual basis.

the applicant submits that

Action brought on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre Allo
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-193/01)

(2001/C 303/36)

(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

— annul the Commission decision of 31 January 2001 and
any similar decision refusing to transfer the applicant to
another service or another DG in accordance with
Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;

— in so far as necessary, annul the Commission decision of
3 May 2001, expressly rejecting the complaint submitted
by the applicant on 23 January 2001, and the Com-
mission decision of 19 June 2001, expressly rejecting the
complaint submitted by the applicant on 30 April 2001;

— order the defendant to pay a sum of 25 000 Euros as

compensation for the damage suffered;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the course of reorganizing the Commission’s directorates-
general, the unit of which the applicant was, until then, head
of unit was abolished, and the applicant was reassigned as
Adviser ad personam in another unit. That reassignment,
resulted inter alia in putting the applicant in a situation where
he was subordinate to an official in a lower grade than his.

The applicant submits that the Commission should have
examined the comparative merits of each of the three heads of
unit affected by the reorganisation. The Commission’s decision
concerning the reassignment of the applicant did not contain
any explanation of the reasons behind the Commission’s
choice to bring to an end his duties as head of unit. The
Commission therefore infringed Article 25(2) of the Staff
in breach of
Regulations. The applicant also submits that,
Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, the decision clearly failed to
have regard to the needs of the service.

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/23

In support of his action for annulment, the applicant also
alleges infringement of the guidelines adopted by the Com-
mission on 18 September 1999, breach of the principle of
equal treatment and psychological harassment in the work
place. Finally the applicant claims compensation for damage
he claims to have suffered.

Grounds of claim:

interpretation
of
Incorrect
article 7 (1)
(b) of the Council
Regulation No 40/94 — The mark
is
sufficiently distinctive. The
Applicant claims further that the
burden to proof otherwise lays
with the Board of Appeal. It is not
up to the Applicant to show that
article 7(1)
the Council
(b) of
Regulation No 40/94 is not appli-
cable.

Action brought on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.
against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market

(Case T-194/01)

(2001/C 303/37)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.,
a company registered in Rotterdam (Netherlands) represented
by Dr. Verna von Bomhard and Dr. Andreas Renck of Lovells
Boesebeck Droste, Alicante (Spain).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 22 May 2001 (Case R 1086/
2000-1) to provide that the trade mark at hand is eligible
for registration as a Community trade mark;

— alternatively, the decision be annulled;

Action brought on 20 August 2001 by the Government
of Gibraltar against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-195/01)

(2001/C 303/38)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 August 2001 by the Govern-
ment of Gibraltar, represented by Alastair Sutton, Michael
Llamas and Walter Schuster, of White & Case, Brussels
(Belgium).

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Unilever N.V.

The Community trade
mark concerned:

Decision of the Exam-
iner:

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Three dimensional mark (Pebble
shape)
Application
No 1 418 250 for certain goods
in class 3

—

Rejection of the Application

Partial acceptance of the Appeal

— annul the Commission’s decision to open the procedure
under Article 88(2), in the form of the letter of 11 July
2001 addressed to the United Kingdom;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Government of Gibraltar introduced a tax scheme under
which certain companies, under certain conditions, were
exempt from income tax and subject only to a fixed tax (the
exempt company legislation). That legislation was modified by
several amendments before and after the accession of the
United Kingdom and Gibraltar to the European Communities
in 1973.