Case T-330/04: Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer against the European Parliament
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, competition (EU), discrimination based on disability, facilities for people with disabilities, indemnification, physically disabled person

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/19

The applicant claims that the Court should:

considered necessary could not be determined by each indivi-
dual Member State.

— Annul Article

2 of Council Regulation

(EC) No
2580/2001 (1) as well as Article 1 of Council Decision
2004/306/EC (2) insofar as they apply, or purport to apply,
to the applicant;

— Annul all Council decisions made on foot of Regulation
2580/2001 having like effect to Decision 2004/306 insofar
as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

— If necessary, annul Article 2 of 2001/931/CFSP (3), Article 1
of Council Common Position 2004/500/CFSP (4) as well as
all Council Common Positions adopted on the foot of
in all cases insofar as they
Common Position 2001/931,
apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

— In the alternative, declare that the above measures are void,
insofar as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

— Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Council Common Position 2001/931/CSFP was adopted with
the stated purpose of implementing Resolution 1373 (2001) of
the Security Council of the United Nations, calling on all signa-
tory states to prevent the financing of terrorist acts by, inter
alia, freezing the funds and resources of all persons who may
be involved in such acts. Regulation 2580/2001 was adopted
in order to implement this common position. Article 2 makes
provision for the freezing of assets belonging to persons
involved in terrorist activity, to be established by the Council in
accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 2. Council Decision
2004/306 provides such a list and includes the name of the
applicant, an Algerian national. As a result, the applicant's
assets in Ireland, where he resides having been granted refugee
status, were frozen.

In support of his application to annul the contested measures
the applicant submits that the Council was not competent,
under Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty, to adopt
Article 2 of Regulation 2580/2001 and Article 1 of Decision
2004/306 and that both the Council and the Commission
misused their powers under
those articles. The applicant
further contends that the list of names appearing in Decision
2004/306 was not established in accordance with the provi-
sions laid down in Article 1 paragraph 4 of Common Position
2001/931. The applicant also claims that the Council had no
power under Articles 15 and 34 EU to adopt Common Posi-
tions 2001/931 and 2004/500 which, according to the appli-
cant, violate these articles and the EC Treaty in general.

The applicant also submits that the contested measures violate
fundamental principles of Community law, in particular subsi-
diarity, proportionality and respect
for fundamental human
rights. He further submits that the Council and the Commission
have failed to state adequate reasons as to why the measures

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on
specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
entities with a view to combating terrorism O J L 344, 28.12.2001,
p. 70.

(2) Council Decision of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC, OJ L 99,
3.4.2004, p. 28.

(3) Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application
of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p.
93.

(4) Council Common Position 2004/500/CFSP of 17 May 2004
updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of
specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Posi-
tion 2004/309/CFSP.

Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer
against the European Parliament

(Case T-330/04)

(2004/C 284/39)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9
August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer of Tübingen (Germany),
represented by Matthias Bauer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the defendant infringed the rights of the appli-
cant in connection with Competition PE/96/A (Administra-
tors);

— admit the applicant to the second stage of a competition

comparable with Competition PE/96/A;

— in the alternative, order the defendant to pay appropriate
compensation, equivalent to at least one month's net salary.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In July 2002, the applicant applied for Competition PE/96/A of
the European Parliament. He stated in the application form that
he was handicapped, in that his vision is reduced to two per
cent of normal. According to the applicant, he was not allowed
to write the test with a computer, being told that the examina-
tion conditions made no provision for compensating handi-
capped participants, and he was not given the extension of
time which he requested.

C 284/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.11.2004

The applicant argues that during the examination, owing to the
it was nowhere near
difficulties arising from his handicap,
possible for him to read through all
the questions in the
allotted time and select the right answers. He argues that he
belonged to the 180 best candidates and would therefore have
been admitted to the next stage of the competition, if he had
been given the requested compensation for his incapacity. He
therefore seeks a declaration that he compensation he applied
for was wrongly denied to him.

Action brought on 6 August 2004 by SEBIRAN, S.L.
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-332/04)

(2004/C 284/41)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-331/04)

(2004/C 284/40)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6
August 2004 by SEBIRAN, S.L., represented by José Antonio
Calderón Chavero, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: German)

of 15 June 2004 in Case R-550/2003-2;

— Annul the decision of the OHIM Second Board of Appeal

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork,
Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented by Bernd Arians,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision of 5 May 2004 on the
applicant's complaint and the Commission's decision of 10
December 2003 classing the applicant in Grade A7;

— require the Commission to adopt a new decision on the
applicant's grade, including a full statement of reasons;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant contests the Commission's decision to class him
in Grade A7, Step 3. He alleges errors of assessment in the
application of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant submits that the contested decision fails to take
account of facts relating to the quality of the applicant's profes-
sional experience which are of fundamental relevance to classi-
fication and that there was a failure to recognise the relevance
of those facts in recruiting the applicant to his first post and to
take proper account of the defendant's recruitment needs.

Moreover, the applicant alleges a failure to exercise discretion,
infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expec-
tations and of equal treatment, procedural errors and failure to
give a proper statement of reasons.

— Confirm decision 1472/2003 in opposition proceedings
B348708 dismissing the opposition brought by the oppo-
nent
in its entirety and allow the application for the
contested mark for all the classes claimed;

— Order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs of these
proceedings in the event of the proceedings being defended
and those parties' claims being rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

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

Mark or sign cited in
opposition.

The applicant

Figurative mark ‘COTO D'ARCIS’
— Application No 1 558 113 for
products in Classes 32 and 33
non-alcoholic
(alcoholic
drinks
for
making beverages) and services in
Class 39 (transport; packaging and
storage of goods)

preparations

and

and

El Coto de Rioja S.A.

Community word marks ‘COTO
DE IMAZ’ (No 339 333) and ‘EL
COTO’ (No 339 408) for products
in Classes 29, 32 and 33, interna-
tional mark No 442 377 and
Spanish marks No 877 219, No
907 966, No 907 967, No 907
985, No 907 989, No 907 993,
No 907 994, No 907 995, No
983 888, No 1 290 986, No
1 614 514, No 1 758 975 and
No 2 172 691).