Case T-65/03: Action brought on 25 February 2003 by Fondation Alsace against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), conference proceedings, exchange of information, report

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/51

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint

of 16 July 2002;

Trade mark concerned:

QUICK-GRIP. — Application
No 1760867.

Product or service:

Decision
before
Appeal:

challenged
the Board of

Pleas in Law relied on:

‘Hand tools, clamps, c-clamps, bar
clamps, hold-down clamps, weld-
ing clamps, chain clamps, locking
bar clamps,
locking hold-down
clamps, locking pipe clamps, pipe
clamps, part and fittings for the
in International
aforesaid goods’
Class 8.

Refusal of registration.

application

Incorrect
of
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Regu-
lation No 40/94.

— order the Commission to pay the costs even in the event

that the present application is dismissed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges, first, lack of
a statement of reasons. The applicant claims furthermore that
the assessment of the comparative merits of the officials
eligible for promotion was incorrect and that it was not carried
out in relation to all the officials eligible for promotion.

Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Georges Vassila-
kis against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-62/03)

(2003/C 101/88)

(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 24 February 2003 by Georges
Vassilakis, residing in Brussels, represented by Georgy Manalis,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities, as the appointing authority, not to include
the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted to
Grade A 5 in the 2002 exercise to promote officials from
one career to the next, as mentioned in Administrative
Information No 40-2002 of 17 May 2002;

— annul the list of officials promoted to A 5 in the 2002
exercise to promote officials from one career to the next,
as mentioned in Administrative Information No 40-2002
of 17 May 2002,
insofar as it does not include the
applicant’s name;

Action brought on 25 February 2003 by Fondation Alsace
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-65/03)

(2003/C 101/89)

(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 25 February 2003 by Fondation
Alsace, whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
represented by François Ruhlmann, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 20 December
2002 or, in the alternative, the preceding decision related
to it;

— order the Commission to pay the Association Fondation
Alsace EUR 3 000 by way of preparation allowance and
costs of proceedings;

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs of

the proceedings.

Alternatively:

— grant the Association Fondation Alsace the longest period

possible for payment.

C 101/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application is directed against a decision of the
Commission of 20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation
Alsace to repay to it EUR 18 000 (principal sum) as a result of
its failure to fulfil subvention agreement PSS*/0534, concern-
ing the organisation in Strasbourg of a conference from
29 June to 2 July 1992 entitled:
la
xénotransplantation et
xénotransplantation’.
et
éthique
According to the Commission, the applicant failed to fulfil one
of its obligations, namely to provide scientific reports.

‘Quel avenir pour

In support of its claims, in addition to pleading lack of a
statement of reasons, the applicant alleges:

— expiry of time-limits to bring an action for restitution
inasmuch as reimbursement of the subsidy in question is
required more than 10 years after it was granted;

— manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that
the condition relating to distribution of scientific reports
was met, having regard to the nationality and number of
leading
participants at the conference who were all
specialists in the field with which the conference was
concerned.

— order the European Parliament to grant to the applicant
the resettlement allowance provided for under Article 6
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with retroactive
effect from 1 June 2002;

— order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a former official of the European
Parliament, was retired with entitlement to receive an invalidity
pension as from 1 June 1999. On 31 May 2002 the applicant
submitted to the defendant an application for the resettlement
allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to the
Staff Regulations, stating that he had, on the previous day,
definitively resettled in England. Following the defendant’s
rejection of that application, the applicant brought the present
action, invoking three pleas in law in support thereof:

— manifest error of assessment;

— breach of the provisions of the second subparagraph of
Article 6(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

— infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel
Poveda Morillas against the European Parliament

Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister
against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(OHIM)

(Case T-69/03)

(2003/C 101/90)

(Language of the Case: French)

(Case T-76/03)

(2003/C 101/91)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel Poveda Morillas, residing in
Folkestone (United Kingdom), represented by Patrick Goergen,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 3 June
2002 refusing to grant to the applicant the resettlement
allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to
the Staff Regulations;

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 28 February 2003 by
Herbert Meister, residing in Muchamiel (Spain), represented by
Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 22 April 2002 of the President of
the Office transferring the applicant together with his
post as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs
with effect from 1 May 2002;

— order the applicant’s rights to be fully restored, which
means retransferring him and his post to his original
department, in its original structure;