Case T-502/04: Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane Lopparelli against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 57/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.3.2005

Second, the applicant invokes the failure to comply with para-
graph 6 of annex II of the WTO's anti-dumping agreement and
with Article 18(4) of Regulation No 384/96, as well as with the
obligation to protect the applicant's legal rights. The applicant
claims that its legal and procedural rights were infringed by not
informing it of the reasons for the rejection of its evidence, by
failing to grant it an opportunity to provide further information
and by failing to publish the reasons for the rejection of the
representations that the applicant made.

Finally, the applicant invokes a violation of its legitimate expec-
tations in that the Community institutions failed to come to an
expeditious conclusion on the claim for market economy status
of the applicant.

3. order the office and the intervening party, Steninge Slott
AB, to pay all the costs of the dispute before the Court of
First
including those relating to the procedure
before the Second Board of Appeal.

Instance,

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Steninge Slott AB

Community trade mark
concerned:

Word mark ‘STENINGE SLOTT’
for products in class 21 (design
products of glass etc.)

(1) OJ L 303, p. 1
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1)

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

The applicant

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Hammarplast
AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-499/04)

(2005/C 57/61)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

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 23
December 2004 by Hammarplast, established in Tingsryd
(Sweden), represented by R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer.

Steninge Slott AB, established in Märsta (Sweden), was also a
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

National
KERAMIK’
same class

mark
for products

‘STENINGE
in the

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Refusal of registration

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Appeal allowed

Violation of Article 8 paragraph 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 24 December 2004 by Stéphane
Lopparelli against Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-502/04)

(2005/C 57/62)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

1. annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the

OHIM of 25 October 2004 in case R 394/2003-2;

2. order the office to refuse the registration of

the term
STENINGE SLOTT as a Community trade mark in respect of
the goods in class 21 for which registration has been
accepted;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane
Lopparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A.
Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision on the award to the applicant of priority
points for the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision
not to include his name on the list of officials promoted to
Grade A5 in that procedure;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of
Articles 5, 7, 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, and
breach of the principle of correspondence between the grade
and the post and the principle that officials should have reason-
able career prospects. Secondly, the applicant pleads that no
consideration of the comparative merits of all the officials of
the same grade was carried out on a basis of equality, in breach
of Articles 5, 7, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the
principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects.

Action brought on 27 December 2004 by José Pedro
Pessoa e Costa against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-503/04)

(2005/C 57/63)

(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 27 December 2004 by José Pedro
Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the Commission's decision of 9 October 2003
refusing to transfer him to the European Monitoring Centre
for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Following that annulment, the defendant took a fresh decision
on the applicant's application and rejected it again by the deci-
sion contested by the present action.

In support of his action, the applicant alleges infringement of
Article 233 EC, of the principle of proportionality and of the
duty to state reasons, as well as an error in law. The applicant
submits that the contested decision merely repeats the argu-
ments put forward in the first decision to reject his application,
which was annulled by the Court, and does not contain any
explanation making it possible to ascertain whether the rejec-
tion of the applicant's application is based on an assessment of
the various interests involved, as was required by the Court in
its judgment. Moreover,
the Commission wrongly took the
view that the applicant's transfer would result in the closure of
the applicant
a disciplinary procedure against him. Finally,
submits that the contested decision is unlawful because the
Commission took on the role of exercising the discretion of the
EMCDDA Selection Board by claiming,
in its reply to his
complaint, that it could not be ruled out that the result of the
EMCDDA's selection procedure would have been different if
the Selection Board had been informed of
the accusations
against the applicant.

(1) Case T-166/02 (OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002, p. 32).
(2) Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2003 (OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003,

p. 20).

Action brought on 29 December 2004 by Navigazione
Libera del Golfo S.p.A. against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-504/04)

(2005/C 57/64)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Commission official, applied for a
transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). His application having been
rejected, the applicant brought an action before the Court (1)
the contested measure. (2)
which resulted in annulment of

An action against the European Commission for the annulment
of the decision adopted on 16 March 2004 (1), pursuant to the
first paragraph of Article 88(2) EC and Article 86(2) EC,
relating to the authorisation of the aid scheme paid by Italy to
the public maritime transport undertaking Caremar (Gruppo
Tirrenia) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 December 2004 by Navigazione
Libera del Golfo S.p.A.
(NLG), established in Naples, repre-
sented by S. Ravenna, lawyer.