Case T-272/02: Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di Napoli against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, action for annulment (EU), auditing, expenditure

26.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests, first, the Commission’s rejection of the
applicant’s request that it institute legal proceedings with
regard to the harassment complained of. Secondly, the appli-
cant contests the implied decision not to recognise the illness
suffered by the applicant, following such harassment, as an
occupational disease.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

The Community trade Word mark ‘RUFFLES’ — Appli-
cation No 000096875, for goods
mark concerned:
in Classes 29 and 30 (food and
condiments)

In support of the action in respect of the first act, the applicant
alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.
In the applicant’s view,
the reasons for the decision are
inconsistent.

Moreover, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(1)
and (2) of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission refuses
to take legal action and in that it refuses to grant the applicant
access to information which it has available to it regarding the
harassing conduct.

In support of the action in respect of the second act, the
applicant alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff
Regulations. The applicant claims not to have received any
reasons for the implied rejection of the request submitted.

Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc.
against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-269/02)

(2002/C 261/36)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

sign
Trade mark or
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Convent Knabber-Gebäck GmbH.

German mark ‘RIFFELS’ registered
for goods in Class 29 (potato
chips)

regards
Application upheld as
‘dried vegetables’
(Class 29) and
‘fine pastry and confectionery’
(Class 30). Application dismissed
regards ‘cereal preparations’
as
(Class 30).

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal dismissed.

Grounds of claim:

Breach of the principles that the
rights of the defence are to be
observed and that reasons must
be provided, in accordance with
Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation
No 40/94, and of co-existence
and comparability between Com-
munity trade marks and national
trade marks

Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di
Napoli against Commission of the European Communities

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc., whose registered office is
in New York (United States of America), represented by
Enrique Armijo Chávarri.

(Case T-272/02)

(2002/C 261/37)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision No 114/2000-1 of the OHIM of 10 June

2002;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 September 2002 by the Munici-
pality of Naples, represented by Massimo Merola, Claudio
Tesauro, Giuseppe Tarallo and Edoardo Barone, lawyers.

C 261/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.10.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against
European Investment Bank

— annul the decision of the Commission notified in a letter
of 11 June 2002 concerning ERDF action No 66 and the
correction of the accounts relating to ERDF action No 67;

— order the Commission to pay the expenditure incurred
by the Comune di Napoli in these proceedings, including
in respect of lawyers’ fees.

(Case T-275/02)

(2002/C 261/38)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of
11 June 2002 closing ERDF file 85 05 03 066 (hereafter ‘ERDF
No 66’) — ‘Metropolitan link between Museo and Dante’ —
by which the European Commission reduced the amount of
the contribution initially granted for completion of the project
in question and implicitly rejecting the request for adjustment
related ERDF action
of
No 85 05 03 067 (hereafter ‘ERDF No 67’) — ‘Rail link —
Naples Town Centre’. The contested decision accepted a level
of expenditure lower than the amount initially provided for and
actually incurred, and accordingly reduced the contribution
initially agreed by the defendant.

the balance relating to earlier

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
principle that legitimate expectations be protected and of
fairness, as well as failure to provide reasons.

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission:

— gave rise, by its own previous conduct, to legitimate
expectations on the part of the applicant regarding the
possibility that it might receive the full agreed amount,
since the work covered by the intervention had been
completed as planned, and the eligible expenditure —
actually incurred and properly accounted for — were on
the whole not less than the initial planned investment.

— rejected the request for adjustment of the balance of
ERDF intervention No 67 and reduced the contribution
provided for in the context of ERDF No 66 on the ground
that the eligible expenditure was of a lower amount (in
that it was erroneously already attributed to the new
intervention), despite the fact the expenditure incurred
was on the whole greater and the acknowledgment, by
the defendant, that the work had been completed in
accordance with the project.

An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 9 September 2002 by D, represented by Joëlle Choucroun,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— annul the unilateral decision of the European Investment
Bank dated 26 March 2002 concerning the four-month
extension of the six-month trial-period agreed between
the parties;

— annul the decision of the European Investment Bank
dated 25 June 2002, reproduced on 28 June 2002,
unilaterally terminating outside the trial period and with
effect from 15 July 2002 the fixed-period employment
contract with the applicant signed on 2 October 2001;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay to the
applicant EUR 45 000 (forty-five thousand euros) by way
of damages;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case contests the extension of the
probation period to be worked for the defendant, together
with its unilateral termination of the applicant’s employment
contract at the end of that period.

In support of the arguments put forward, the applicant alleges:

— Infringement of the principle of legality, in that neither
the letter engaging him nor the Staff Regulations of the