Case T-250/03: Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, accountant, action for annulment (EU), job mobility

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/19

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Partial admission of
the oppo-
sition and allowance to proceed
to registration of the Community
trade mark for
the following
goods: cocoa, sugar and chewing
gum.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
Société des Produits Nestlé.

Pleas in law:

According to the applicant there
is no likelihood of confusion
between the two marks and it
refers in this respect to a judgment
of the Superior Court of justice in
Madrid that allegedly stated that
Menorquina was not entitled to
oppose the use of the word mark
‘POLO’ in Spain.

Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-250/03)

(2003/C 239/37)

(Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The purpose of the present action is to challenge the legality
of the implied decision rejecting the complaint by the applicant
against her suspension from her duties following her removal
from the post of Accounting Officer and Budget Execution
Director in Directorate General Budget, and her transfer to the
position of Principal Adviser in Directorate General Personnel
and Administration, as the result of a disciplinary procedure.

This application is based on the following elements:

— Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulation, through
the adoption of a measure resulting in the applicant’s
suspension without adequate grounds therefore, in the
absence of any breach of Articles 12, 21 or 60 of the
Staff Regulation.

— Breach of Article 88 of the Staff Regulation,

in the
absence of any serious misconduct that may justify the
urgent need to exclude her from the working place.

— Breach of the principle of proportionality, in as much as
the measure in question is to be qualified as dispro-
portionnal in relation to the allegations made against her.

— Breach of the rights of defence, through the adoption of
a suspension measure without ensuring the possibility of
the applicant being heard and protecting her rights.

Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH
+ Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the
European Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by I. Forrester, QC.

(Case T-251/03)

(2003/C 239/38)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
the Applicant’s appeal against her suspension from her
duties;

— award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money
to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such
other rate as may be fixed by the Court;

— award her the costs of the present action.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht
GmbH + Co.KG, Aulendorf, Germany, AniMedica GmbH,
Senden-Bösensell, Germany, Ceva Tiergesundheit GmbH, Düs-
seldorf, Germany, Fatro S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, Laboratorios
Syva S.A., León, Spain, Laboratorios Virbac S.A., Barcelona,
Spain, Química Farmacéutica Bayer S.A., Barcelona, Spain,
Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda, Lisboa,
Portugal, Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias S.A., Madrid,
Spain, Virbac S.A., Carros, France, represented by D. Wael-
broeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers.