Case T-13/02: Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von Hoff against the European Parliament
Date: 2002-04-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, job mobility

20.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 97/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 23 January 2002

in Case T-386/00 Margarida Gonçalves v European Parlia-
ment (1)

(Officials of the European Communities — Competition
notice — Non-admission to a competition — Consistency
between pleas put forward during the administrative proce-
dure and those set out in the application — Admissibility —
Statement of reasons — Administration’s duty to have
regard for the interests of officials and the principle of sound
administration)

(2002/C 97/22)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-386/00, Margarida Gonçalves, former member of
the temporary staff, residing in Brussels, represented by
L. Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against European Parliament (Agents: J.F. De Wachter and
D. Moore) — application to annul the decisions of the selection
board rejecting the application of the applicant in internal
competition B/172, establishing the list of suitable candidates
and all decisions taken by the defendant on the basis of such
decisions, and for compensation for the pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage allegedly suffered as a result of those
decisions, — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vila-
ras); Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a judgment
on 23 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ 2001 C 61.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

context

of ALTENER-AGORES

for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for an order
requiring the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 EUR in
the
contract No X-
VII/4.1030/Z/99-085, together with interest at the Belgian
statutory rate applying from 23 July 2001, to be paid within
eight days from delivery of the decision to be given, or in
default to pay a periodic penalty of 100 EUR for each day’s
delay — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 7 December 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von
Hoff against the European Parliament

(Case T-13/02)

(2002/C 97/24)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, of Berlin (Germany),
represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Parliament’s decision of 17 April

2001;

— order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant
the installation allowance amounting to two months’
salary, together with interest at the rate of 8 % from the
date of the request (15 March);

of 7 December 2001

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

in Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE v Commission of the
European Communities

(Procedure for interim relief — Payment under a contract —
Interim measures — Urgency)

(2002/C 97/23)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE, established in Brussels, repre-
sented by V. Marien and J. Choucroun, lawyers, with an address

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the context of the transfer of the liaison centre of the
European People’s Party from Bonn to Berlin, the applicant,
whose place of employment was Brussels and who took over
as head of the liaison centre, was moved to Berlin. He applied
for the grant of an installation allowance pursuant to Article 5
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The institution refused
that application on the ground that the applicant had returned
to live with his family, who had already been residing in Berlin
prior to the transfer of the applicant.

C 97/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2002

The applicant asserts that the decision refusing his application
is contrary to Article 5(2) of Annex VII, since the conditions
for granting an installation allowance are fulfilled, and that the
European Parliament cannot validly rely on the ground of
exclusion laid down in Article 5(4) of Annex VII.

Grounds of claim:

— incorrect application of the
provisions
of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) and of
Regulation (EC) No 2868/
95 (2);

— incorrect

application

of
and (c) of

Article 7(1)(b)
Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

— incorrect

application

of
Article 7(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94.

Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Audi AG against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-16/02)

(2002/C 97/25)

(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
30 January 2002 by Audi AG, of
(Germany),
represented by L. von Zumbusch, lawyer.

Ingolstadt

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2001 by the
First Board of Appeal in appeal No R 0652/2000-1;

— order the defendant Office to pay the costs.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1003 on the Com-

munity trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen S.A.
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-17/02)

(2002/C 97/26)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The trade mark con-
cerned:

the verbal mark ‘TDI’ — appli-
cation No 19752

Goods or services:

goods and services in Classes 12
and 37 (vehicles and constructive
parts thereof; repair and mainten-
ance of vehicles)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 January 2002 by Fred Olsen
S.A., whose registered office is in Santa Cruz de Tenerife
(Spain), represented by Rafael Marı´n Correa, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 25 July 2001

Decision
before
Appeal:

contested
the Board of

refusal of
examiner

registration by the

— order the Commission of the European Communities
to initiate the procedure for verifying whether aid is
compatible with the EC Treaty in accordance with its
judgment;

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the appeal

— order the defendant to pay the costs.