Case T-379/02: Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Antonio Andolfi against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), balance of payments assistance, business start-up, joint venture

C 44/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 January 2002 to
retire the applicant on an invalidity pension set
in
accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of the
Staff Regulations;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official of the Commission. The contested
decision forced the applicant into retirement with the benefit
of an invalidity pension set in accordance with the third
paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations.

In support of his application, the applicant alleged infringe-
ment of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and
infringement of the provisions relating to the operation of
the Invalidity Committees. According to the applicant, the
Invalidity Committee was not properly formed. The applicant
also argues a breach of the duty to state reasons.

The applicant is an official of the Commission and worked in
the Berlaymont building, where he was exposed to asbestos.
In 2001 the applicant asked to be given an invalidity pension
on the basis of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. That request
was refused by the Commission.

The applicant claims, first, that in rejecting his complaint the
Commission misconstrued the facts which led to the appli-
cant’s complaining about the malfunctioning of the Invalidity
Committee as a result of linguistic problems.

The applicant also alleges that the principles of sound adminis-
tration and the administration’s duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials were breached, as were the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations, the rights of the defence
and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The applicant complains of irregularities in the procedure
before the Invalidity Committee such as the abandonment of
scheduled medical examinations, the problem of communi-
cation and the absence of a lawyer at the meeting of the
Invalidity Committee.

Action brought on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’ against the
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Antonio Andol-
fi against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-377/02)

(2003/C 44/72)

(Case T-379/02)

(2003/C 44/73)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’, rep-
resented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitiia, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Antonio
Andolfi, represented by Salvatore Amato, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2002
replying to the complaint lodged on 5 July 2002 by the
applicant on the basis of Article 90 of the Staff Regu-
lations of Officials and Other Servants of the European
Communities;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested provision;

— order the European Economic Community to compensate
the damages suffered and to be suffered by Seven Stars
Pictures and Phoenix European S.r.l., to be liquidated in
the course of the proceedings, together with clerical costs.

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/39

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present action is the representative of
Seven Stars Pictures Italia (‘SSP’), a company with its head
office in Rome and which, on 13 August 1977, applied, in the
context of the Phare-Tacis Joint Venture Programme, for a
financial contribution towards the incorporation of an Italo-
Rumanian company (a joint venture project with Phoenix
European S.r.l.).
recorded that a contribution of
EUR 81 327, together with a further EUR 4 099 in respect of
the pre-feasibility stage, was granted, whereupon an advance
of EUR 28 311 was paid to SSP and the corresponding
contract was signed. At the end of the first phase of ‘Facility 2’
the remainder of the contribution was paid over.

is

It

According to the applicant, the relevant staff of the Com-
mission had continuously assured the abovementioned com-
pany that everything was in order and that all that needed to
be done was to calculate the precise amount still owing.
However, on 30 October 2001, the Commission adopted the
contested decision, refusing the joint venture company the
contribution granted by the joint venture programme.

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that insufficient
reasons were given and that the Commission made an error in
its evaluation of the facts.

The statement of reasons given for the contested decision is
too concise. Mention is made of a divergence between the
project as approved and the joint venture ultimately set up,
but no mention is made of any actual omission or discrepancy.

As regards the assertion that no documents are extant that
prove that the joint venture in question became operational,
and the allegation that no employees were even engaged and
no turnover achieved, the applicant submits that it has shown
that the joint venture is operational, that 12 professionals have
been retained and that business has been commenced,
in
particular in the field of professional training.

The applicant claims compensation of the damages it has
suffered as a result of the contested decision.

Action brought on 13 December 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC
against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market

(Case T-383/02)

(2003/C 44/74)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities on 13 December 2002 by G.D. Searle
LLC, Illinois, United States of America, represented by Pro-
fessor W. A. Hoyng, lawyer.

A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was PHYTO-ESP S.L.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the

OHIM of 1 October 2002 (Case R 627/2001-1);

— order the OHIM to compensate Searle for the costs of

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community
trade mark
against
which a request for dec-
laration on invalidity has
been introduced:

The word mark CELEBREX
(No 852 372) for certain goods in
class 5 (a.o. pharmaceuticals in
the nature of anti-inflammatory
analgesics)

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

G.D. Searle LLC

Applicant for the declar-
ation of invalidity of the
Community trade mark:

PHYTO-ESP S.L.

Trade mark or sign of
the applicant for declar-
ation of invalidity:

The national word mark CEREB-
RESP for certain goods in class 5
(pharmaceutical products a.o.)

Decision of the Cancel-
lation Division:

Declaration of invalidity of the
Community trade mark CELEB-
REX

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal
G.D. Searle LLC

of

the

appeal by

Grounds of claim:

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that
there is no likelihood of confusion
between the marks ...

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).