Case T-486/04: Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, administration of the Institutions, personnel administration, psychological harassment, regulations for civil servants

C 57/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.3.2005

Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Association
Coopération des Bibliothèques de Bretagne (COBB) against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-485/04)

(2005/C 57/54)

(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 10 December 2004 by the Associa-
tion Coopération des Bibliothèques de Bretagne (COBB), estab-
lished in Rennes (France), represented by J.-P. Martin, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the subparagraph concerning the COBB of Decision
No 1116 dated 9 December 2003 of the Commission of
the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Commission's decision which
This action is against
excluded the operation ‘Réseau des périodiques de Bretagne,
année 1999’ (Brittany Periodicals Network 1999), for which the
applicant had applied for a subsidy from the ERDF,
from
expenditure eligible under the Programme Objectif 5b Bretagne
1994-1999 (Programme Objective 5b Brittany 1994-1999).

The applicant sought that financing under a programme of
rural and costal development entitled ‘Morgane 2’, which was
implemented for the Brittany Region, in respect of Objective
5b for the period 1994-1999. That programme describes all
the action eligible for European financing, of which Action
215, which comes within Priority Axis A aimed at mobilising
the employment market and, more particularly, within Measure
2 aimed at improving the competitiveness of businesses, by
developing remote working and access to teleservices.

In concrete terms, the operation ‘Brittany Periodicals Network’
consists of putting in place, thanks to a network of establish-
ments, a hardware and software infrastructure managing a data-
base made up of articles from periodicals and studies covering
in order to make high-quality information on that
Brittany,
region accessible, via the Internet,
to all decision-makers
(elected representatives, heads of undertakings, etc.). Its aim is
to support and raise the quality of information and decision of
the economic decision-makers with a view to greater competi-
tiveness of undertakings.

It was only after two agreements granting subsidy had been
signed, that the Region's Prefecture notified the applicant of the
contested decision.

In support of its claims, the applicant relies on three pleas in
law. The first concerns a mistake in the statement of reasons,
the second brings together arguments alleging breach of the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the
third alleges breach of the duty to state reasons.

The applicant submits in that regard that:

— contrary to the defendant's statement, the applicant is estab-
lished in an eligible area, since there is no requirement in
Action 215, Axis A concerning the recipient's registered
office, and, since, in this case, the area concerned covers the
whole of Area 5b, that is to say, ‘the rural and costal world’
of Brittany. Also, Action 215 lists
individually the
‘economic development associations and bodies’, which
shows that the two expressions cannot be mistaken;

— the agreement granting subsidy signed between the appli-
cant and the Prefecture on 31 December 2001 contained
precise assurances which gave rise in the applicant's mind
to expectations based on the continuity of the operation in
question. Further, a European Union subsidy of EUR 10 976
was actually paid to the applicant in March 2002 under
Programme 5b;

— the applicable Community legislation makes no reference
either to possible withdrawal of a subsidy or to a demand
for repayment thereof under the ERDF;

— the decision complained of confines itself to a gap-filling
reference to the reservation issued by the Commission inter-
ministérielle de coordination des contrôles (the Interminis-
terial Commission for Coordination of Controls), but
contains no reasoned or sufficient explanation enabling the
reasons why the Commission held the operation in ques-
tion to be ineligible to be understood.

Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-486/04)

(2005/C 57/55)

(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 13 December 2004 by Christos
Michail, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Hara-
lambos Meidanis, lawyer.

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/33

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's Decisions of 20 March 2004, impli-
edly rejecting the application for assistance under Article
24 of the Staff Regulations made by the applicant on 20
November 2003, and of 13 September 2004, rejecting the
complaint lodged by the applicant;

— annul Decision R 176/2004-2 of

the Second Board of

Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;

— order OHIM to pay all the costs.

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments:

On 20 November 2003, the applicant, a Commission official,
made an application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff
Regulations alleging that he was the victim of mental harass-
ment on the part of the administration of his institution. By his
action, he seeks the annulment of the implied decision rejecting
that application and the decision rejecting his complaint
submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant claims that the defendant did not take action on
his complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the verification
and checking of Community joint
financing but, on the
contrary, precisely because of his complaints, adopted an atti-
tude designed to intimidate him and to compromise his career.
In support of his action, he relies on Articles 12a, 21a, 22b
and 24 of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of the Financial
Regulation, the principle of sound financial management and
the protection of the financial interests of the Commission, the
principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and a manifest
error of assessment on the part of the Commission.

Community trade mark
sought:

Word mark ‘BIN LADIN’ for goods
and services in Classes 9, 12, 14,
18, 25, 28, 35 and 41 – Applica-
tion No 2 223 907.

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the exam-

Refusal to register.

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of
Council Regulation No 40/94. The
applicant claims that registration
of the mark in question would not
be contrary to either public policy
or accepted principles of morality.

Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting
Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting
Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-488/04)

(2005/C 57/57)

(Case T-487/04)

(2005/C 57/56)

(Language in which the application was lodged: French)

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 15
December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in
Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer.

(Language in which the application was lodged: French)

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 15
December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in
Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision R 177/2004-2of

the Second Board of

Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;

— order OHIM to pay all the costs.