Case T-311/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by José Luis Buendia Sierra against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action by staff, action for annulment (EU), administrator, equal treatment, professional career, promotion, staff assessment

C 262/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Cornu SA Fontain

Community trade mark
sought:

Word mark ‘FERRO’ for goods in
Classes 30 (salted biscuits)

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

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

The applicant

National word mark ‘FERRERO’
for goods in classes 5, 29, 30, 32
and 33 (chocolate, etc.)

— annul the Appointing Authority's decision not to award
him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in
the interests of the institution’ special priority points for the
2003 promotion year;

— annul the Appointing Authority's decision to award him a
total of 20 points for the 2003 promotion year, the list of
merit of Grade A5 officials for the promotion year 2003,
the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 in the promotion
year 2003 and, in any case, the decision not to enter his
name in those lists;

— annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his

complaint;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition rejected

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Appeal rejected

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation 40/94 (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 22 July 2004 by José Luis Buendia
European
Sierra

against

the

of

the Commission
Communities

(Case T-311/04)

(2004/C 262/84)

(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 22 July 2004 by José Luis Buendia
Sierra, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude
and Valérie Landes, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal
Service to award him only one Directorate-General priority
point for the 2003 promotion period, which was confirmed
and made definitive by the decision of the Appointing
Authority rejecting his informal appeal;

irrespective of

According to the applicant, the decision to award him only one
Directorate-General priority point is due to criteria established
in the Legal Service which lead to the award of such points to
officials with most seniority in grade,
their
merits. In challenging that decision, the applicant alleges infrin-
gement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement
of Article 2(1) of the general provisions giving effect to Article
43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 6(3) and (4) of the
general provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regu-
lations. In addition, the applicant maintains that that decision
offends against the principle of equal treatment and the prin-
ciple that officials are to have reasonable career prospects,
contains a manifest error of assessment and amounts to
improper exercise of authority. Finally, he alleges breach of
essential procedural requirements in the procedure for the
award of points and considering the informal appeal.

Moreover, the applicant claims that the decision not to award
him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the
interests of the institution’ special priority points for the 2003
promotion year is contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regula-
tions, Article 9 of the general provisions giving effect to Article
45 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treat-
ment. In his view, that decision is also vitiated by a manifest
error of assessment and misuse of power.

Finally, the applicant challenges the decision to award him a
total of 20 points, the list of merit of Grade A5 officials, the
list of officials promoted to Grade A4 and the decision not to
enter his name in those lists. In this connection, the applicant
alleges, first of all, that the other acts challenged in this action
are unlawful and also that the rules governing staff appraisal
for the period 2001-2002, the general provisions giving effect
to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the general provisions
giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations are unlawful.
In his view, those provisions offend against Articles 25(2) and
45 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials are to
have reasonable career prospects and the principle of equal
treatment. Last, the applicant claims that those decisions are
vitiated by lack of competence and breaches of essential proce-
dural requirements.