Action brought on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena against European Air Safety Agency
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), air safety, appointment of staff

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/45

Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Reemark
Gesellschaft
the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

für Markenkooperation mbH, against

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

(Case T-22/04)

(2004/C 94/127)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure language in which the case was submitted:
English)

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 January 2004 by Reemark
Gesellschaft für Markenkooperation mbH, Hamburg, Germany,
represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer.

Pleas in law:

Bluenet Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

international

The
and national
word mark ‘West’ for goods and
services in classes 1 to 13, 15 to
31 and 35 to 41 (apparatus for
recording;
matter;
clothing; education and entertain-
ment;...)

printed

Rejection of
the application for
the word mark
registration of
‘Westlife’ for the contested goods
and services

Annulment of the contested deci-
sion insofar as it upheld the oppo-
sition of Reemark Gesellschaft für
Markenkooperation mbH

Violation of Article 8 (1)
Council
40/94 (1)

Regulation

(b) of
(EC) No

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

Regolamento (CE) del Consiglio 20 dicembre 1993, n.

40/94, sul marchio comunitario (GU L 11, pag. 1).

— declare non-conformity with section 8.1.b) of the EC Regu-
lation 40/94 concerning the Community trade mark of the
Decision of 17 November 2003 issued by the Second
Appeals Chamber of the OHIM by which the appeal lodged
by Bluenet Limited against Decision No 106/2002 of 25
January 2002 was upheld, with the consequent dismissal of
the opposition proceeding B 279 358 brought against the
community trade mark application No 1 169 085, Westlife,
in classes 9, 16, 25 and 41;

— declare the confusing nature of Community trade mark
application number 1,169,085, Westlife, classes 9, 16, 25
and 41 with German trade mark No 397 43 603, West,
that protects identical products and services of the same
classes, 9, 16, 25 and 41;

— instruct payment of the costs of the proceeding to the

defendant party.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Bluenet Ltd.

The Community trade
mark sought:

The word mark ‘Westlife’
for
goods and services in classes 9,
16, 25 and 41 (Sound storage
media,
image storage media and
data storage media; printed matter;
clothing;
services
entertainment
provided by a musical band,...)
(Application No 1169085)

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the

Reemark Gesellschaft für Marken-
kooperation mbH

Action brought on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena
against European Air Safety Agency

(Case T-30/04)

(2004/C 94/128)

(Language of the Case: French)

An action against the European Air Safety Agency was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena, residing at Rhode
St Genèse (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi
and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the European Air Safety Agency's (EASA) decisions
of 11 July 2003 to appoint another person to the post of
executive director and to reject the applicant's candidature
for that post;

— Order the payment of damages as compensation for the
applicant's loss in the sum of EUR 2, the amount fixed on
an equitable basis;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

C 94/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the European Air Safety Agency's
(EASA) decision to reject his candidature for the post of Execu-
tive Director and to appoint another person to that post.

He points out the fact that the information which he and his
lawyers have obtained following their request is fragmentary
and has not allowed the applicant a clear and transparent view
of the procedure followed.

In support of his claims, he asserts;

— Breach of the duty to state reasons and of the duty to have
regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials and of the
principle of sound administration;

— Lack of information, from which it can be objectively and
legitimately assumed that
impartiality,
objectivity and non-discrimination have not been observed,
and breach of the procedural rules and the vacancy notice;

the principles of

— Disregard of the interests of the service and breach of
Article 12 of
the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of the European Communities, in so far as it is
clear from a comparison of
the person
appointed, based on the brief biography transmitted by the
Commission, and of those of the applicant, that the appli-
cant's merits are manifestly superior.

the merits of

For some years, the applicant has received a double child allow-
ance under Article 67(3) of
the Staff Regulations. Since
December 1998, the applicant's severely disabled son has been
receiving monthly disability assistance payments
from a
Luxembourg fund.
the applicant notified these
In 1999,
payments as a precaution. As a result, the amount of the
payments from the fund, which regularly exceeded the double
child allowance, was deducted from these family allowances,
repayment was demanded of past sums paid since the award of
the special assistance by the Luxembourg fund, and family
allowances which would otherwise have been due thereafter
were subsequently not paid.

The applicant claims that the conditions under which a deduc-
tion may be made under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations
have not been met. According to the definition in Article
67(3), the double child allowance is to be paid in order to
relieve the financial burden on an official who, because his
child is severely handicapped,
is involved in ‘heavy expendi-
ture’. By contrast, the fund defines payments made by it as
‘special assistance for severely disabled persons’. They are sepa-
rate payments, which are awarded to the handicapped child
itself, rather than to the applicant, even though the money is
paid to the child's legal representative because the person
entitled to it is a minor. The payments are thus neither ‘allow-
ances’, nor are they ‘of like nature’. Their deduction under
Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations is therefore unlawful.
Furthermore,
from the start, made
contrary to the better legal view.

the deductions were,

Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Roderich Weißen-
fels against European Parliament

(Case T-33/04)

(2004/C 94/129)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2
February 2004 by Roderich Weißenfels, residing in Bereldingen
lawyer, with an
(Luxembourg),
address for service in Luxembourg.

represented by H. Arend,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision of 26 June 2003 deducting
payments made for the benefit of his son from other
sources from the double child allowance payable to the
applicant under Article 67(3) of
the Staff Regulations,
together with the defendant's decision of 10 November
2003 on the complaint in the same matter;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all amounts
improperly withheld from his remuneration together with
interest at the rate prescribed by law;

— order the defendant to pay the costs and all the essential

expenses incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Action brought on 30 January 2004 by Athinaiki Oikogen-
iaki Artopoiia A.V.E.E. (S.A.) against the Office for Harmo-
nisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM)

(Case T-35/04)

(2004/C 94/130)

(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure language in which the case was submitted:
English)

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 30
January 2004 by Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia A.V.E.E.
(S.A.), Pikermi, Attica, Greece, represented by Dr C. Chris-
santhis, lawyer.

Ferrero oHG mbH was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and / or alter it accordingly so
that the intervener's opposition be dismissed and the rele-
vant CTM No. 1 010 099 application for registration effec-
tively be accepted,