Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2002 in Joined Case T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Priority of officials — Rejection of candidatures of temporary members of staff — Appointment of an official — Prohibition of discrimination — Statement of reasons — Interests of the service — Fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of other servants — Duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Vacancy notice)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, equal treatment, servant (EU)

C 323/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May
2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
Treaty (IV/32.150 — Eurovision);

2. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs, together with
those of the applicants and of the intervener Reti Televisive
Italiane Spa;

3. Orders DSF Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH to bear the costs

of its intervention;

4. Orders the intervener Union européenne de radio-télévision to
bear its own costs, together with those incurred by Métropole
télévision SA, Antena 3 de Televisión SA and SIC — Sociedade
Independente de Comunicação SA for their interventions;

5. Orders the intervener Radiotelevisión Española to bear its own
costs, together with those incurred by Antena 3 de Televisión
SA for its intervention;

6. Orders Gestevisión Telecinco SA to bear the costs it incurred in
connection with the intervention of the Union européenne de
radio-télévision and of Radiotelevisión Española.

2000), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 15 October 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission of 30 June 2000,
refusing to acknowledge the eligibility of the applicant for the
Programme encouraging the development and distribution of
European audiovisual works (MEDIA II — Development and
distribution) (1996-2000);

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000, C 302 of 21.10.2000 and C 355 of

9.12.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 October 2002

in Case T-233/00: Scanbox Entertainment A/S v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(Programme encouraging the development and distribution
of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Automatic
support for distribution — Recipient company)

of 17 October 2002

in Joined Case T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi
and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Article 29(1) of the
Staff Regulations — Priority of officials — Rejection of
candidatures of temporary members of staff — Appointment
of an official — Prohibition of discrimination — Statement
of reasons — Interests of the service — Fourth and fifth
paragraphs of Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of
other servants — Duty to have regard for the interests of
officials — Vacancy notice)

(2002/C 323/50)

(2002/C 323/51)

(Language of the case: Danish)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-233/00, Scanbox Entertainment A/S, established in
Farum (Denmark), represented by T. Steffensen,
lawyer, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: N. Ras-
mussen and H. Støvlbæk): Application for the annulment of
the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2000 refusing to
recognise the applicant’s eligibility for the programme encour-
aging the development and distribution of European audiovisu-
al works (Media II — Development and distribution) (1996-

In Joined Cases T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi and
Evi Hainz, former members of the temporary staff of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Varese
(Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
D. Waelbroeck), application:

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/33

— in Case T-330/00, for annulment of the decisions of
16 March 2000 and 22 February 2000 of the authority
empowered to conclude contracts not to accept the
respective candidatures of Mr Cocchi and Mrs Hainz for
the posts declared to be vacant by vacancy notices COM/
R/5530/00 and COM/R/5500/00 respectively or, in the
alternative, annulment of those vacancy notices and for
compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered
by the applicants;

— in Case T-114/01, for annulment of the decisions of
appointment adopted by the authority empowered to
conclude contracts under the recruitment procedures
initiated by vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 and COM/
R/5500/00 and for compensation in respect of the harn
allegedly suffered by the applicants,

composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
A. W. H. Meij,
for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which
it:

Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R 278/2000-1);

2. Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.

the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas
and P. Lindh,
for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 2002 in which
it:

J. Plingers, Administrator,

Judges;

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders all the parties to bear their own costs.

( 1) OJ C 372, 23.12.2000, and C 227, 11.8.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 October 2002

in Case T-36/01: Glaverbel v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
Design applied to the surface of goods — Absolute ground
for refusal — Distinctive character — Right to a hearing)

(2002/C 323/53)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Language of the case: English)

of 9 October 2002

in Case T-360/00: Dart Industries Inc. v Office for Har-
monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — ‘UltraPlus’ — Absolute grounds
for refusal — Descriptive character, distinctive character —
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2002/C 323/52)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-360/00, Dart Industries Inc., established in Orlando,
Florida (United States of America), represented by J. Gray and
K.-U. Jonas, lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: V. Melgar):
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R
278/2000-1) on the registration of ‘UltraPlus’ as a Community
trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),

In Case T-36/01, Glaverbel, established in Brussels (Belgium),
represented by S. Möbus, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Schneider): Action brought against
the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-1), the
Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) of 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-
1);

2. Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred

by the applicant.

(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.