Case T-123/05: Action brought on 11 March 2005 by Olivier Chassagne against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

C 115/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

— allow registration

of

the Community

trade mark

2 778 488

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

to pay the costs.

in Brussels, Reina Cantalejo María Teresa, residing in Brussels
and Tejada Fernández Miguel, residing in Zaventem (Belgium),
represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume,
lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
concerned:

A three-dimensional mark of a
transparent rectangular container
with rounded angles on the under-
side and sphere like on the upper
side, containing speckled blue gel
and a large white ball, for goods
in class 1 (water softeners etc.) and
3 (laundry preparations etc.) —
application No 2 778 488

the exam-

Refusal of registration

1. annul

the Appointing Authority's decisions rejecting the
applicants' complaints, taken together with the Appointing
Authority's decisions of 1 May 2004 changing the appli-
cants' grades to Grade A*8 or B*8;

2. annul the applicants' pay slips implementing the Appointing
Authority's decision to change the applicants' grades to
Grade A*8 or B*8 from 1 May 2004;

3.

invite the Commission to recognise the applicants as being
eligible for promotion to Grade A*10 and B*10 on their
next promotion;

4. order the Commission to make good the loss suffered by
the applicants as a result of their not having been placed in
Grade A*9 or B*9 from 1 May 2004;

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

5. order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

— Misapplication

of

of Regulation

7(1)(b)
No 40/94
— Misapplication

of

7(1)(c)
No 40/94

of Regulation

Article
(EC)

Article
(EC)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
case T-114/05 Joerg Peter Block and Others v Commission.

Action brought on 8 March 2005 by Andreas Knaul and
Others against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Action brought on 11 March 2005 by Olivier Chassagne
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-120/05)

(2005/C 115/64)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-123/05)

(2005/C 115/65)

(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 8 March 2005 by Knaul Andreas,
residing in Riga (Latvia), Márquez Camacho Antonio, residing

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 March 2005 by Olivier Chas-
sagne, residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues
and Yola Minatchy,
lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the appointing authority's decision of 9 December
2004 responding to the applicant's complaint of 28 May
2004 and require the appointing authority to take whatever
action is dictated by that annulment;

2. rule that any unjustified and objectively unjustifiable discri-
mination based on whether or not the place of origin and/
or place of employment belongs, in the geographical sense,
to the continent of Europe is unlawful and accordingly
declare that Article 8(4) of Annex VII to the old Staff Regu-
lations is unlawful;

3. recall, irrespective of the foregoing, that Réunion is an inte-
gral part of the Community under Article 299(2) of the EC
Treaty and is also subject,
its
Member State, to the EAEC Treaty and the Treaty on Euro-
pean Union and point out in that regard that European offi-
cials originating from that territory are entitled to equal
treatment vis-à-vis those originating from a European terri-
tory, in the geographical sense, of a Member State;

through the accession of

4. award the applicant EUR 1 as token compensation for the
non-material damage suffered and EUR 7 200 to compen-
sate for the financial damage suffered.

5. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision not
to
acknowledge his entitlement, as an official originating from a
French Overseas Department, to be covered by Article 8(1) to
(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in the version in force
before 1 May 2004.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads unlawfulness of
the legal basis of the contested decision, namely Article 8(4) of
Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations of Officials. According
to the applicant, that provision is invalidated by the absence of
a statement of reasons, is discriminatory and infringes Article
21(1) of the European Charter of fundamental rights of the
European Union.

The applicant also alleges breach of the obligation to state
reasons and breach of a number of rules and general principles
of Community law, such as the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials, as well as manifest error of assessment,
breach of the principle of equal treatment and breach of the
principle of good administration

Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Inge-
nieurtechnik GmbH Dresden against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-125/05)

(2005/C 115/66)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und
Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden, Dresden (Germany), repre-
sented by H. Robl, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 23 December 2004 refusing to award

a contract to the applicant;

— annul

the decision of 23 December 2004 awarding a

contract to All Trade S.r.l;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission of 23
December 2004 not to award the applicant Public Contract No
AIDCO/A6/FP/co/2004/D/45370, Contract No 90-127 in the
tender procedure 'Plan Improvement Project for South Ukraine
NPP,' concerning a measure to introduce an intelligent control
system for water quality in the nuclear power station in South
Ukraine. The applicant also challenges the simultaneous deci-
sion to award this contract to the competitor All Trade S.r.l.

The applicant argues that the Commission:

— erroneously assessed that

the applicant's tender did not
comply with point 2.2.6 of
the technical specification,
although all of the services offered by the applicant fully
satisfied the specification and this was confirmed by refer-
ences,

— erroneously stated that the applicant did not comply with
points 2.3.1 and 2.3.4 of the technical specification due to
insufficient explanations and information, although the
applicant's explanations were both extensive and exhaus-
tive, and

— breached the duty to provide clarification and exceeded its

discretion.