Case T-65/05: Action brought on 7 February 2005 by Thomas Seldis against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), regulations for civil servants

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/31

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. annul the applicants' May 2004 pension slips, with the
effect of applying a weighting coefficient at the level of the
capital of their country of residence, or at least a weighting
coefficient adequately reflecting differences in the cost of
living in the places where the applicants are deemed to
incur expenses.

2. order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
in Case T-35/05 Elisabeth Agne-Dapper and others v Commission.

Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Lotto Sport Italia
S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-62/05)

(2005/C 106/65)

(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 15
February 2005 by Lotto Sport
Italia S.p.A., established in
Treviso (Italy),
represented by S. Feltrinelli and G. Brogi,
lawyers.

Brillen Vertriebs-GmbH,

Eisingen
Lotos
(Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

established

in

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
concerned:

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

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A.

The figurative mark ‘Lotto’
for
goods in classes 3, 9 and 16 (Spec-
tacles, spectacle frames, spectacle
cases, spectacle chains, spectacle
cords, spectacle lenses, binoculars
(optics, …) — application No
1 443 183

Lotos Brillen Vertriebs GmbH

The Community and international
word mark ‘Lotos’
for goods in
classes 9, 14 and 18 (Optical
apparatus and instruments; specta-
cles; spectacle frames, in particular
of metal; precious metals and their
leather and imitations of
alloys;
leather; …) — CTM registration
No 610 642

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Rejection of the trade mark appli-
cation for the opposed goods, ie.
the goods in class 9

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

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

Action brought on 7 February 2005 by Thomas Seldis
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-65/05)

(2005/C 106/66)

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 7

October 2004, ruling case R 572/2003-4;

(Language of the case: French)

— declare that the mark applied for, in so far as it concerns
goods falling in class 9, namely ‘sports spectacles not made
of precious material’, is not capable of being confused with
the opponent's CTM Mark No 610 642 and the Interna-
tional mark No 447 179;

— order the reimbursement of the costs of these proceedings.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2005 by Thomas Seldis,
residing in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Xavier Martin M., Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and
Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

C 106/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul

the Commission's decision of 5 April 2004 to
appoint the applicant a probationary official in so far as it
does not grade him on recruitment at grade A6 and was
adopted without considering the possibility of allowing him
additional seniority in grade in accordance with Article 32
of the Staff Regulations and Article 4 of the internal direc-
tives of 11 October 1984;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case objects to his grading as a proba-
tionary official in the JRC Directiorate General at grade A7 at
the time of his appointment.

In that regard, he alleges infringement both of Articles 31 and
32 of the Staff Regulations and of the internal directives of 11
October 1984 on the fixing of the grade and step of staff, and
more specifically that of officials in the scientific and technical
services who occupy posts paid from appropriations in the
research budget.

Having regard to his claims, the applicant maintains inter alia
that, at the time of his recruitment as an official, he already
had proof of more than eight years of professional experience
qualifying for additional seniority.

— set aside the negative decision of the Director-General of
the Directorate General for Administration of 26.11.2004
concerning the applicant's complaint of 21.6.2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in the Legal Service of

The applicant was an official
the
Commission in grade A*14. Due to his special function within
the Legal Service he applied for recognition as a middle
manager with consequent entitlement
increments
prescribed in Articles 44(2) and 46 of the Staff Regulations and
in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII thereto.

to the

In support of his claim, the applicant argues that the decision
rejecting his complaint was formally deficient in that it was
drawn up exclusively in English, although the applicant's first
complaint was written in German and that it infringed Article
253 EC by not addressing the wholly individual nature of his
complaint.

The applicant further complains of an infringement of the
treatment in the assessment and
general principle of equal
grading of his job. The applicant argues that his duties and
responsibilities were on a par with those entrusted to the Head
of Unit. The fact that his successor was granted higher-grade
pay constituted a further infringement of the principle of equal
treatment.

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Jörn Sack against
the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Aytan's Manufac-
turing Company (UK) Limited against
the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)

(Case T-66/05)

(2005/C 106/67)

(Case T-67/05)

(2005/C 106/68)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17.02.2005 by Jörn Sack, Tervuren
(Belgium), represented by U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decisions on the assessment of his remunera-
tion from May 2004 to February 2005 due to a breach of
the principle of equal treatment and reassess his remunera-
tion for those months with due regard to that principle;

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 15
February 2005 by Aytan's Manufacturing Company (UK)
Limited, established in London (United Kingdom) represented
by S. Malynicz, Barrister and M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.

Criminal Clothing Limited,
(United
Kingdom) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.

established in Poole

The applicant claims that the Court should: