Case T-394/02: Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, abuse of power, action for annulment (EU), disability insurance, health expenditure, income in addition to normal pay, seizure of goods

C 55/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2003

the applicant alleges breach of

Finally,
the fundamental
principles of legal certainty, sound administration and good
faith. The applicant makes the point that it has, on numerous
occasions, approached the Commission without ever obtaining
any indication which would have enabled it to provide results
likely to be acceptable in the eyes of the Commission and the
Council.

( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of 23 September 2002
amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-
stuffs as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive
and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (Text
with EEA relevance) (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1).

( 2) Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning
additives in feeding-stuffs (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (III),
p. 840).

( 3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 of 16 November
1999 linking the authorisation of certain additives belonging to
the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances in
feedingstuffs to persons responsible for putting them into circu-
lation (Text with EEA relevance) OJ 1999 L 296, p. 3.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark for which
Community registration
sought:

Goods or services:

A three-dimensional mark in the
form of a bottle standing on its
head in the colours transparent
and white — Application
No 1162395

Goods of Classes 3 and 20 (includ-
ing soaps, washing and bleaching
preparations, cleaning and pol-
ishing preparations and artificial
containers for liquid, gel-like and
pasty preparations)

Decision
before
Appeal:

challenged
the Board of

Refusal of
examiner

registration by the

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the complaint

Pleas in law:

— The mark is distinguished by
a number of special features
and has distinctive force.

— The Board of Appeal disre-
characteristic
the
garded
geometry of the mark.

— The mark has acquired pro-
tection in several Member
States.

Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Henkel KGaA
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-393/02)

(2003/C 55/86)

(Language of the case: German)

Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Arnaldo Lucac-
cioni against Commission of the European Communities

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
27 December 2002 by Henkel KGaA, Düsseldorf (Germany),
represented by C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-394/02)

(2003/C 55/87)

(Language of the case: French)

— set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
3 October 2002 in Case R 313/2001-4, concerning
Community
application
No 1162395;

trade mark

registration

— order the Office 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 27 December 2002 by Arnaldo
Lucaccioni, residing in St-Leonards-on-Sea (United Kingdom),
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvol-
vé, lawyers.

8.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/35

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities adopted on 7 September 2002 concerning
complaint R/272/02 lodged by the applicant on 21 May
2002;

— order payment in their entirety of: the fees charged by Dr
Cognigni for his work in the context of the Medical and
Invalidity Committees concerning the applicant, together
with reimbursement of the amounts withheld from the
applicant’s pension; default interest on all those amounts;
and the costs of the proceedings,
including lawyers’,
translation and process servers’ fees;

The applicant also alleges failure to have regard for the welfare
of officials and misuse of powers. The Commission has created
a situation allowing it to avoid all contact with Dr Cognigni
who, for his part, can only pursue the applicant.

Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega
Rodríguez against the Commission of the European
Communities

— compensate the applicant for the non-material damage

(Case T-395/02)

suffered;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former official of the Commission who
worked in the Berlaymont building, was retired on the
ground of invalidity in 1991. The applicant’s condition was
subsequently acknowledged to be an occupational disease. The
applicant appointed Dr Cognigni to sit on the Medical and
Invalidity Committees.

The Commission failed to pay Dr Cognigni’s fees. The applicant
then brought Case T-75/98 seeking payment of the fees. That
case was removed from the register after an out-of-court
settlement fixing an amount to be paid to the applicant by
way of additional payment in respect of the work done by the
Invalidity Committee and of the costs incurred in bringing
proceedings before national courts. Contrary to expectation,
Dr Cognigni insisted that the whole of his fees be reimbursed.
He therefore again brought proceedings against the applicant
before the Italian courts. Following a judgment delivered by an
Italian court, Dr Cognigni sought enforcement of the judgment
by way of attachment of the applicant’s pension. The applicant
is challenging the decision adopted by the Commission
authorising the attachment.

The applicant would point out that in accordance with the
rules relating to fees incurred in the context of medical and
invalidity committees, the costs are entirely covered by the
Commission.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
principle of proportionality and the spurious and vexatious
nature of the attachment ordered by the Commission. Accord-
ing to the applicant, the Commission ought to have taken
account of the fact that the judgment was still open to appeal.

(2003/C 55/88)

(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 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega
Rodríguez, residing in Brussels, represented by J.R. Iturriagago-
itia and K. Delvolvé, avocats

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Primarily

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities adopted on 27 September 2002 in respect
of Claim No R/297/02 brought by the applicant on
5 June 2002;

— order the respondent to pay the costs;

In the alternative

— annul the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2002;

— order the payment of compensation for the damages
sustained in the sum of EUR 72 292,36 together with
interest until the date of payment at the legal rate;

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant objects to her exclusion,
at the pre-selection stage, from the tests for open competition
COM/A/10/01.