Case T-113/03: Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Georgios Gouvras against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses

7.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/35

between

— Violation of the principle of
continuity
the
Opposition Division and the
Board of Appeal in that the
Board of Appeal refused to
examine
applicant’s
the
request for proof of use.

— Breach of Article 8(1) of
Council Regulation 40/94 in
that there is no likelihood of
confusion.

— Breach of Article 8(2) (a) (ii)
of Council Regulation 40/94
in that the Board of Appeal
failed to assess whether the
national
trade mark could
validly be invoked to oppose
the Community trade mark
application
the
national legislation.

under

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

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

( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of 30 April 2002 of the Director
of the ‘Administration and Personnel Management for
Luxembourg and Ispra’ Directorate in DG ADMIN refus-
ing the applicant the installation allowance and daily
subsistence allowance during his secondment to Athens,
and the installation allowance upon his return to Luxem-
bourg, and that limiting the transferable part of his salary
to 35 % of his net emoluments from his place of
secondment to his place of work and habitual residence;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was stationed in Luxembourg, was second-
ed in the interests of the service to the Greek Ministry of
Health in Athens. By its contested decisions, the defendant
refused him the installation allowance and daily subsistence
allowance and limited the part of his salary he was allowed to
transfer to Luxembourg to 35 %.

With regard to the refusal of the installation allowance and the
daily subsistence allowance, the applicant claims infringement
of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in
support of his arguments. With regard to the 35 % cap on the
amount of his salary that he was allowed to transfer to
Luxembourg, he claims infringement of Article 38(d) of the
Staff Regulations and of Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Georgios Gouvras
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-113/03)

(2003/C 135/56)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Samar SpA against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-115/03)

(2003/C 135/57)

(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 31 March 2003 by Georgios
Gouvras, resident in Bereldange, Luxembourg, represented by
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Sébastien
Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the 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
7 April 2003 by Samar SpA, represented by Alessandro Ruo,
lawyer.