Case T-76/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), reassignment

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;

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/53

— order the defendant to make good the non-material
damage suffered, evaluated provisionally at EUR 50 000,
subject to adjustment;

ation allowance and, therefore, the other realted allow-
ances, in accordance with the Lozano case-law;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Until 1 May 2002, the applicant, an official at the Office for
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), held the post
of Head of Service of the Cancellation Division. By the decision
being contested in the present action,
the applicant was
transferred as legal adviser to Vice-President for Legal Affairs.
In support of his claims for annulment, the applicant pleads:

— erroneous and inadequate statement of reasons for the

decision of 22 April 2002;

— breach of the principle of proportionality and of freedom

of expression;

— infringement of the rights of defence, in particular the

right to be heard;

— breach of the principle of sound administration; and

— breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of

officials.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward
earlier in Case T-205/02 Salvador García v Commission (1),
Case T-298/02 Ana Herero Romeu v Commission (2) and
T-299/02 Dedeu v Commission (2).

(1) OJ C 219 of 14 September 2002, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 289 of 23 November 2002, p. 38.

Removal from the register of Case T-305/01 (1)

(2003/C 101/93)

(Language of the Case: French)

By order of 29 January 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-305/01: Thalassa Seafoods S.A. v Commission of
the
European Communities.

Action brought on 3 March by Tomás Salazar Brier
against Commission of the European Communities

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.

(Case T-83/03)

(2003/C 101/92)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tomás Salazar Brier,
residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-Gallardo
Gil-Fournier and Dolores Domínguez Pérez, Members of the
Madrid and La Coruña Bars respectively.

Removal from the register of Case T-84/02 (1)

(2003/C 101/94)

(Language of the Case: French)

By order of 30 January 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-84/02:
Armand de Buck v Commission of the European Communities.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare invalid the decision of 24 February 2003, implicit
in the Commission’s silence, refusing to grant an expatri-

(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.