Case T-87/04: Action brought on 1 March 2004 by Milagros Irene Arranz Benítez against the European Parliament
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment (EU), dependant, tax relief

C 106/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— Order the defendant to pay all costs relating to the proceed-

ings.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

Community trade mark
sought:

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Word mark ‘ATRAUM’ for goods
in Class 5 (wound dressings) and
Class 10 (medical devices etc.) –
Application No 11405588

Paul Hartmann Akteingesellschaft

Mark or sign cited in
opposition.

National and international mark
‘Atrauman’ for goods in Class 5

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of his application, the applicant first pleads that the
report concerning him is stored in electronic form in the new
computer system of the Commission's personnel division and
file which infringes
thus constitutes a parallel personal
Article 26 of
the new
computer system also contravenes the requirement in Article
25 of the Staff Regulations that documents be in written form.

the Staff Regulations. The use of

The applicant submits further that the reporting procedure
infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, Article 8 of the
Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 on general
imple-
menting provisions for Article 43, the principle of equality, the
prohibition of discrimination, the duty to state reasons and the
prohibition of arbitrary action. The requirement that legitimate
expectations be protected, the ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ rule,
the Commission's duty to protect the interests of its officials,
the audi alteram partem rule and the principles of fair adminis-
trative procedure have also been infringed by the contested
reporting procedure, including the appeal proceedings brought
by the applicant.

Action brought on 1 March 2004 by Guido Strack against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-85/04)

(2004/C 106/152)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2004 by Guido Strack,
Wasserliesch (Germany), represented by J. Mosar, Rechtsanwalt.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the reporting procedure for the years 2001 to

2002 so far as the applicant is concerned;

— set aside the report made in his regard (REC/CDR) —
including the view expressed by his previous hierarchical
superior and the decision of the appointing authority (R/
432/03) of 24 November 2003 — for the period from
1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

Action brought on 1 March 2004 by Milagros Irene
Arranz Benítez against the European Parliament

(Case T-87/04)

(2004/C 106/153)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1
March 2004 by Milagros Irene Arranz Benítez, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul the decision of the Head of the European Parliament's

‘Individual Rights’ Division of 15 April 2003;

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/79

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

shared between the applicant and her

By the contested act the Parliament decided to take into consid-
eration,
for the purpose of calculating the tax abatement
provided for by Article 3 of Regulation 260/68 (1) and the
expatriation allowance payable to the applicant, two only of
her children, on the ground that actual maintenance of the chil-
dren was
former
husband, who is also an official and entitled to the same allow-
ances. The applicant challenges this decision, claiming that she
alone actually maintains the children, given that the monthly
contribution paid by her former husband for each child is less
than the threshold laid down by the conclusions of the Group
of the Heads of Administration and is not, in any case, of such
an amount that the children can be regarded as being depen-
dent on their father, given the latter's grade and his posting
outside the Communities.

In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringement
of Articles 7, 14, 25(2), 29(1)(a) and 45 of the Staff Regulations
and infringement of the rules on the appointment of officials at
grade A1 and A2, misuse of powers and failure to observe
general principles of law, such as the principle of legality, prin-
ciple that officials should have reasonable career prospects,
equal
requiring the
appointing authority to adopt decisions only on the basis of
legally permissible grounds, that is to say grounds which are
relevant and free from manifest errors of assessment.

treatment and,

the principles

finally,

(1) Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) of the Council of 29 February
1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the
tax for the benefit of
the European Communities (OJ, English
Special Edition 1968 II, p. 37).

Action brought on 24 February 2004 by C.I. Bieger against
Europol

Action brought on 3 March 2004 by Marie Tzirani against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-88/04)

(2004/C 106/154)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 2004 by Marie Tzirani,
represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

(Case T-89/04)

(2004/C 106/155)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
2004 by C.I. Bieger, residing in Zoetermeer (Netherlands),
represented by P. de Casparis and M.F. Baltussen.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) set aside the dismissal of 24 November 2003 by Europol of
the appeal brought by C.I. Bieger against the decision of
6 June 2003, and at the same time annul the decision of
6 June 2003;

2) order Europol to extend C.I. Bieger's contract of employ-

ment to 1 July 2006;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

3) Order Europol to pay the costs of the proceedings.

— annul the decision of the Commission of 23 May 2003 to
reject the applicant's candidature for the post of A2 as
Director of ADMIN.C ‘Social policy, Luxembourg staff,
health and safety’;

— annul the appointment of another official to that post;

— in so far as necessary, annul the implied rejection of the
applicant's complaint, which was lodged on 7 August 2003
and registered under number R/461/03;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of her application,the applicant pleads infringement
of the principle that reasons must be given and argues that
Europol exceeded its discretionary power.