Case T-384/02: Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Fernando Valenzuela Marzo against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), installation allowance, regulations for civil servants

C 55/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2003

the applicant alleges breach of

Finally,
the principle of
proportionality and breach of the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations based on the existence of Community
financing for the production and marketing of ‘Feta’.

( 1) OJ L 277, p. 10.
( 2) Judgment in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96

Denmark and Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.

( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Fernando
Valenzuela Marzo against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-384/02)

(2003/C 55/83)

(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 18 December 2002 by Fernando
Valenzuela Marzo, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-
Albert Lucas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the head of the Administration of
Individual Rights unit of the Adminstration Directorate-
General of 16 November 2001 and 13 February 2002
refusing the applicant the second half of the installation
allowance;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 16 Sep-
tember 2002 rejecting the complaint through official
channels of 9 May 2002 against the abovementioned
decisions;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant the second
half of his installation allowance together with default
interest at the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from
11 April 2001 and until payment is made in full;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official at the Commission in Brussels. In
June 2000, on taking up his appointment, he settled in
Brussels. His spouse subsequently settled in Brussels with him
and organised the removal of the family, which took place on
11 April 2001, whilst continuing to be present at her
former home in Madrid, where their youngest daughter was
completing her secondary education. Consequently, his spouse
and daughter did not join him until July 2001, which they
declared to the Privileges and Immunities service.

By the contested decision, the Commission refused to pay the
applicant the second half of the installation allowance.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads an error of law
and a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant,
the administration attached decisive importance to the declar-
ations made by his spouse and daughter to the Privileges and
Immunities service. The applicant states that the concept of
installation is a factual concept and that the text of the Staff
Regulations does not prescribe any particular mode of proof.

The applicant also pleads an error of law and an omission of
essential facts, since the administration considered the period
laid down by Articles 5(4) and 9(3) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations to be a mandatory time-limit and did not consider
the possibility of waiving it by reason of the complainant’s
establishment as an official on taking up his appointment and
the fact that his daughter was unable to join her parents in
Brussels before the end of the school year.

Action brought on 16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G.
against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-386/02)

(2003/C 55/84)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G., whose registered
office is in Madrid, represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri
and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez.