Case T-281/03: Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action for annulment (EU), regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 251/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and arguments of the applicant are the same
as in Case T-278/03 (Van Mannekus v Council).

The applicants, who are the proprietors of a number of trade
marks and company names containing the word ‘Galileo’ as an
essential component, argue that the adoption of that word by
the Commission as the name for the Community project on
the European satellite radio navigation system infringes their
trade mark rights.

The action is based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty. The
applicants claim there is a likelihood of confusion based on
the alleged similarity between the signs in question and
between the goods and services sold by the applicants and
the subject-matter of the Community project. They also claim
that the Commission acted unfairly and negligently with regard
to their rights, and plead infringement of the principle of
proportionality.

Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus &
Co. B.V. against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-280/03)

(2003/C 251/30)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus & Co. B.V.,
Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by H. Bleier, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June
2003 amending the antidumping measures imposed by
Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned
(scintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic
of China (1);

(1) OJ L 143, p. 5.

Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura
against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-281/03)

(2003/C 251/31)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of
the European
Communities on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, lawyer.

Justice of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 in so far

as it does not:

1.

delete, from the definitive report for the period from
1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, the following words
included under general observations: ‘She is encour-
aged to resume tasks of coordination and distribution
of work in the Pool which she has performed
efficiently in the past’;

2.

include a reference in that report to her ‘capacity for
mobility and versatility’;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay all the

costs.

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested regulation the Council altered the nature of
antidumping duties on imports of dead-burned magnesia ori-
ginating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a
partial interim review.

The applicant
takes issue with the appointing authority's
refusal to delete one phrase and include another in her staff
report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001.

18.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/17

In support of her application, she relies inter alia on the
following pleas:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— failure to have regard to the purpose of optional observa-
tions in so far as the fact that she was being ‘encouraged
to resume tasks of coordination and distribution of work
in the Pool’ is in no way a justification of the assessment
of ‘very good’ under the headings concerned;

— inconsistency in the marks;

— failure to have regard to the observations of the Reports

Committee;

— that she was the victim of harassment at her workplace;

— that she had amply and undeniably demonstrated a
capacity for mobility and versatility. It would therefore
be in keeping with the Staff Regulations for that merit to
be specifically referred to in the staff report at issue.

The applicant submitted his candidature for a vacant post as
counsellor at the European Anti-Fraud Office. The applicant's
candidature for the post was rejected.

In support of his action, the application claims that there has
been a breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, an abuse
of power and of procedure, a manifest error of assessment, a
breach of essential procedural requirements in drawing up the
vacancy notice, a breach of the principle of institutional impar-
tiality and of the principle that an institution must have regard
to the welfare of its officials, a breach of Part 1, Point 2 of the
Commission's Decision of 21 December 2000, a breach of
the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard,
of the principle of equality of arms, of the principle of equality,
of the principle that an institution must have regard to the
welfare of its officials, of the principle that officials should
have reasonable career prospects and of the principle that
a decision must contain a statement of reasons. Last, the
applicant claims that the Director General of OLAF was not
competent
the
complaint and to reject it.

to make a determination in respect of

Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-282/03)

(2003/C 251/32)

(Language of the case: French)

the Commission of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Paul
Ceuninck, residing in Hertsberge (Belgium), represented by
G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the entire selection procedure following notice of

vacant post COM/051/02 and annul that notice;

— annul the decision to appoint another person taken by
the appointing authority on 13 September 2002 and also,
consequently, the decision rejecting the applicant's candi-
dature for that post;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-284/03)

(2003/C 251/33)

(Language of the case: French)

the Commission of

the European
An action against
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda
Aycinena,
represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers.

residing in Brussels,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 26 March 2003 revising the appli-
cant's classification on recruitment classifying her at the
first step of Grade LA 6;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
obligation to provide reasons for decisions, manifest error of
assessment, breach of the principle that officials should have
the Staff
reasonable

(Article 5(3) of

career prospects