Case T-61/05: Action brought on 10 February 2005 by Cornelius Rozemeijer and others against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action by staff, pension scheme

C 106/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

According to the applicants, the contested decision does not
specify the species and habitats for which the sites listed are of
Community importance and is based on erroneous technical
information. It would appear that the areas in question were
listed on the basis of the presence of the great crested newt and
of calaminarian grasslands. The applicants argue that
the
former is not an priority species and the latter is not a priority
habitat and that, therefore, they do not know to which priority
natural habitat type or species the contested decision refers.

(1) OJ L 387 p. 1
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
22.7.1992, p. 7).

Action brought on 2 February 2005 by European
Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-59/05)

(2005/C 106/63)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 February 2005 by European
Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by
N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission (DG Agriculture), to
evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the
contract to the successful contractor;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal costs and
other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the
application, even if the application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed a bid in response to the Commis-
sion's call for tenders AGRI-2004-S4FA-I3-01 for the provision
of information system development, maintenance and support
services
Information
Systems (1). By the contested decision this bid was rejected and
the contract awarded to another bidder.

the DG Agriculture

Financial

for

In support of its application for annulment of that decision the
applicant claims first of all the Commission violated the Finan-
cial Regulation (2) as well as Article 17(1) of Directive 92/50 (3)
by using evaluation criteria that were extremely vague. The
applicant
in
response to the applicant's questions, to explain in a clear and
objective manner what precisely was requested of the tenderers.

the Commission failed,

further contends that

that

further

applicant

The
the Commission
considers
committed manifest errors of appreciation in its evaluation of
the applicant's tender. In this respect the applicant contends
that the Evaluation Committee did not correctly evaluate the
offers, failing to take into account that contrary to the applicant
both members of
the successful consortium had extremely
limited experience. The applicant also maintains that its own
bid was more advantageous.

The applicant also invokes a violation, by the Commission, of
its obligation, under Article 253 EC, to state reasons and a
failure to provide pertinent information requested by the appli-
cant on the grounds for the rejection of its bid. The applicant
also submits that the Commission violated the principle of
good administration and diligence by acting with significant
delay and by not offering adequate answers to the applicant's
requests for information prior to the submission of the bids.

(1) OJ 2004 S 59-050031.
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities, OJ L 248, 16/09/2002, p. 1.

(3) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coor-
dination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ
L 209, 24/07/1992, p. 1.

Action brought on 10 February 2005 by Cornelius Roze-
meijer and others against the Council of the European
Union

(Case T-61/05)

(2005/C 106/64)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 February 2005 by Cornelius Rozemeijer,
residing in Alkmaar (Netherlands), Gaston Vaesken, residing in
Sanary-sur-Mer
residing in
Sanary-sur-Mer (France), represented by G. Vandersanden, L.
Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.

(France) and Pierrette Vaesken,

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.