Case T-162/03: Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), administrator, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 171/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to make good the damage suffered
by it as a result of incomplete compliance with the
judgment of the Court of 28 February 2002;

— annul the decision of the Commission of 6 May 2002
definitively recruiting the applicant in Grade A 7 at step 3;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant has brought this action seeking a declaration
that the Commission is liable for failing to comply entirely
with the judgment of the Court (1) reducing the amount of the
fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission in decision
94/601/CE (Plasterboard), relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833-Plasterboard) (2).

In the applicant’s view, the Commission should still pay the
interests due on the difference between the sum paid and the
amount of the fine finally fixed by the Court of First Instance
together with the costs, agreed by common accord of the
parties at EUR 50 000. The defendant incurs non-contractual
liability for the damage arising therefrom.

( 1) Case T-308/94 Cascades SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
( 2) OJ 1991 L 243, p. 1.

Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-162/03)

(2003/C 171/64)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took up his duties as a probationary official on
1 August 2001 and was provisionally recruited at step 1 in
grade A 7. The applicant made a request for recruitment at a
higher grade. That request was refused.

In support of his application the applicant submits that there
was a breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations in so far
as the Commission did not take account of the specific
requirements of the service. The applicant also submits that
there was a manifest error of assessment.

Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-169/03)

(2003/C 171/65)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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
12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A., represented by Alessandro
Ruo, lawyer.

Sissi Rossi s.r.l. was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot, residing in
Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

— declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between
the trade marks in question with regard to all the goods
referred to and annul the contested decision at issue; in
the alternative, declare that the trade marks are inconsist-
ent with each other so far as concerns ‘ladies’ bags’ and
‘ladies’ shoes’ and declare that there is an affinity between
such goods;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.