Case T-116/02: Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), civil servant, damage

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/59

Mark or sign right cited
in opposition:

The German national
figurative
marks ‘a’ for goods in Class 25
(inter alia, clothing)

Decision of Opposition
Division:

Refusal of application for regis-
tration of mark

but was mislaid within the Commission’s services. The appli-
cant was thus unable properly to discharge his financial
obligations and was required to pay a penalty. As the
administrative fault on the Commission’s part is proved, the
applicant is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and
non-pecuniary harm sustained.

Decision of Board of
Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division with respect
to goods in Classes 9, 16, 35 and
41; affirmation of the decision
with respect to goods in Class 25

— No similarity with the rel-
evant goods in Class 25

— Significant difference from

the figurative marks

Action brought on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-121/02)

(2002/C 144/115)

Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu
against Commission of the European Communities

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case T-116/02)

(2002/C 144/114)

(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
European Communities on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.,
represented by Professor Franco Gallo, Gabriele Escalar and
Professor Adriano Rossi, Lawyers.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu,
residing in Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to make reparation for the pecuni-
ary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicant,
amounting to EUR 353;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 11 December 2001 no C54/A/2000/EC,
unpublished, declaring incompatible with the internal
market the system of State aid laid down by Italian
legislation in the form of tax advantages for banks and
banking institutions;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

and all consequential costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official of the Commission and at the
material time was on temporary secondment to the Court of
Justice.

The main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case
T-36/02 ABI v Commission (1).

In support of his claim for damages, the applicant alleges that
the Commission’s mail service received a letter from an Italian
professional body addressed to the applicant and containing a
demand for payment. The letter did not reach the applicant

(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002, p. 14.