Case T-244/03: Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European official, action for annulment (EU), asbestos, medical examination, occupational disease

C 200/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.8.2003

Action brought on 23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs)

for restitutio in integrum occasioned by his failure to pay the
appeal fee in good time.

(Case T-242/03)

(2003/C 200/57)

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market
Court of First
the European Communities on
23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby, Lahnau (Germany), represented
by K. Müller, lawyer, of Kanzlei Krieger Froese & Kollegen. Leo
Pharmaceutical Products BV, Weesp (Netherlands), was also a
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Instance of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal rejected the
application and declared that the appeal was to be regarded as
not having been lodged.

The applicant submits that usually time-limits are entered in a
diary for that purpose kept by his former lawyer in order to
comply with and monitor the time-limits for bringing appeals
and payment of the appeal fee, and the time-limits are only
then crossed out of that diary after they have been observed.
In order to avoid any accidental crossing out of an entry in
the diary, the member of
that lawyer's staff responsible for
overseeing the time-limits is required to initial any crossing out
of a deadline. Since that
long-standing, consistently reliable
member of his staff had crossed out and initialled the time-
limit entered in respect of the appeal case, the lawyer acting
for the applicant was entitled to assume that the appeal fee
had been paid in good time. Since the failure to observe the
time-limit for payment of the appeal fee was not caused by
any fault of the lawyer acting for the applicant, the application
for restitutio in integrum is founded and the action must be
granted.

— annul

the decision of

the Fourth Board of Appeal of
14.3.2003, thereby granting the applicant's application to
the Board of Appeal for restitutio in integrum, occasioned
by his failure to observe the time-limit for payment of the
appeal fee;

— declare that the appeal is to be regarded as having been

lodged.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-244/03)

(2003/C 200/58)

(Language of the case: French)

the word mark ‘leovat’
The applicant sought registration of
with the defendant office in respect of goods in Classes 3, 4, 5
and 31 (application No 657221). Leo Pharmaceutical Products
BV, proprietor of the international word mark ‘Leo’ for goods
in Classes 3 and 5, lodged an opposition to registration.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti,
residing in Nice (France), represented by Juan Ramon Iturriaga-
goitia and Karine Delvolvé, avocats.

lodged an appeal against

By decision of 6 July 2001, the Opposition Division allowed
the opposition on the ground that there was a likelihood of
confusion owing to the high level of similarity of the goods
and the signs. The applicant
that
decision in good time. On 19 September 2001, the Registry of
the Board of Appeal informed the applicant that the appeal fee
had not been received by the office before the expiry, on
6 September 2001, of the time-limit for bringing an appeal,
and gave the applicant the opportunity to submit his observa-
tions on the matter. On 24 September 2001 the applicant
effected payment of the appeal fee and simultaneously applied

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of

the Directorate-General Personnel

and Administration of 5 May 2003;

— order a challenge to two of the members of the medical

committee;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/33

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former Commission official, worked for many
years in the Berlaymont building, which was then contami-
nated with asbestos. In 1996, the applicant applied for recog-
nition of the occupational nature of her illness and, in 1998,
requested that a medical committee be consulted in accordance
with Article 21 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of
the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
Occupational Disease. That medical committee issued a first
majority opinion in 2000, but, after a complaint by the
applicant,
the Commission decided to refer to it a second
time. On 23 April 2003, the applicant sent a diagnosis to the
Commission, requesting that it be examined by the medical
committee. In reply to that request, the Commission stated, by
letter of 5 May 2003, that the medical committee had already
finished its work and that
it was therefore impossible to
submit the diagnosis sent by the applicant to it for its opinion.
The applicant challenges that latter decision, which she claims
should be annulled. She also argues that the composition of
the medical committee should have been changed at the time
of the second reference to it, and therefore requests that two
of its members be challenged. In support of her claims, she
alleges misuse of powers, lack of independence and neutrality
infringements of the
on the part of the medical committee,
principle of sound administration and the duty to pay due
regard to the welfare of officials, and infringement of
the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

European Communities on 20 June 2003 by Fédération des
Nationale des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA),
the
Fédération Nationale Bovine (FNB),
the Fédération Nationale
des Producteurs de Lait (FNPL) and Jeunes Agriculteurs (JA),
Fédération Nationale, established in Paris, represented by Bruno
for
Néouze and Valérie Ledoux,
service in Luxembourg.

lawyers, with an address

The applicants claims that the Court should:

— annul

the Commission Decision of 2 April 2003,
No C.38.279/F3 — French beef in respect of the FNSEA,
the FNB, the FNPL and the JA;

— alternatively, cancel the fines imposed on them;

— further and alternatively, reduce the amount of the fines;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Action brought on 20 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale
des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA) and Others
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-245/03)

(2003/C 200/59)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in the present case is the same as that
in Case T-217/03 Fédération Nationale de la Coopération Bétail
et Viande (FNCBV) v Commission (1).

The pleas and main arguments are the same as those put
forward in that case.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

(1) See p. 30 of this Official Journal.