Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-61/01 P: Francis Panichelli v European Parliament (Officials — Temporary agent — Lack of promotion — Reassessment of post — Drawing up of staff reports — Termination of contract — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2002-06-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), administrator, promotion, servant (EU), termination of a contract

1.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 131/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 11 December 2001

(Fourth Chamber)

of 13 December 2001

in Case C-301/00 P: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

in Case C-61/01 P: Francis Panichelli v European Parlia-
ment (1)

(PTOM — Project financed by the EDF — Action for
damages — Legitimate expectations — Commission duty to
monitor)

(Officials — Temporary agent — Lack of promotion —
Reassessment of post — Drawing up of staff reports —
Termination of contract — Appeal manifestly inadmissible
and manifestly unfounded)

(2002/C 131/01)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case 301/00 P: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (Island of
Raiatea, French Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis,
avocat, — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Third Chamber, of
27 June 2000 in Case T-72/99 Meyer v Commission [2000]
ECR II-2521, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) — the Court, composed of
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, R. Schintgen
and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 11 December 2001, the operative
part of which is as follows:

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Meyer shall bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.

(2002/C 131/02)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case 61/01 P: Francis Panichelli, residing in Wezembeek-
Oppem (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer — appeal
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities, Second Chamber, of 13 December
2000 in Joined Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 Panichelli v
Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I-A-287, II-1311, seeking to have
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being European Parliament (Agents: J. F. de Wachter and
D. Moore) — the Court, composed of S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
President of Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
made an order on 13 December 2001, the operative part of
which is as follows:

1.

The appeal brought by Mr Panichelli and the cross-appeal
brought by the European Parliament are dismissed.

2. Mr Panichelli and the European Parliament shall bear their

own costs.

C 131/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.6.2002

3.

The Parliament’s
order
Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case
T-130/98 is rejected.

application for

the Court

to

(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 March 2002

in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-
urta v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff
Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member
State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal
manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)

(2002/C 131/03)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta,
a former official of the Commission of the European Com-
munities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of
President of Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as
follows:

von Bahr,

S.

1.

The appeals are dismissed.

2. Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002
in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
Bauchemie GmbH

(Case C-49/02)

(2002/C 131/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
(Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:

For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
(colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks?

In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’

a)

b)

c)

a sign,

sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,

capable of being represented graphically?

(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in
the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.
and Others

(Case C-60/02)

(2002/C 131/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisen-
stadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
S.A. and Others, on the following question: