Case T-135/05: Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/33

Action brought on 26 March 2005 by the Kingdom of
Belgium against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

that those specific rules do not provide for the imposition of
default interest in respect of ESF action decided on before 6
July 1990 and, therefore, the Commission cannot claim default
interest on the claims in question.

(Case T-134/05)

(2005/C 132/59)

(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 26 March 2005 by the Kingdom of
Belgium,
represented by Jean-Pierre Buyle and Christophe
Steyaert, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 19 January 2005,
insofar as it states that ‘former ESF claims’ are not time-
barred and, where appropriate, insofar as it states that such
claims give rise to default interest calculated on the basis of
Article 86 of Regulation No 2342/2202/EC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-135/05)

(2005/C 132/60)

(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 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli,
residing in London, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and
Alice Jaume,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

From 1987 to 1992 the Commission asked the applicant to
repay certain sums paid out of the European Social Fund (ESF)
and transferred by the Commission directly to various Belgian
bodies acting as promoters but not used by them in accordance
with the rules relating to the ESF.

In 2004 the Commission set off certain sums payable by the
applicant by virtue of its former claims against claims the appli-
cant had against the Commission. Following that setting off,
the applicant sent several letters to the Commission to which
the Commission replied by the contested decision, stating that
the former claims were not time-barred, contrary to the conten-
tion of the applicant.

In support of its application the applicant submits that the
claims at issue are time-barred pursuant to Article 3.1 of Regu-
lation No 2988/95/EC or, in the alternative, pursuant to the
provisions of Belgian law, applicable here pursuant to Article
2.4 of Regulation No 2988/95/EC.

The applicant also disputes the charging by the Commission of
default interest. According to the applicant there are specific
rules on the subject, namely in Regulation No 1865/90/EEC
and Regulation No 448/2001/EC, derogating from Article 86
of 2342/2002/EC which is relied on by the Commission to
justify the imposition of default interest. The applicant submits

— annul

the decision of

taken together with,

the appointing authority of 13
December 2004 rejecting the complaint
lodged by the
applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions,
the
appointing authority challenged in that complaint, which
amended on 1 May 2004 the weighting, household allow-
ance and standard educational allowance applicable to the
the applicant's
applicant's pension, and also,
payslips in that they apply that decision from May 2004;

the decision of

second,

first,

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks, in substance, the appli-
cation of the weighting applicable to his pension before 1 May
2004, with retroactive effect to 1 May 2004.

In that regard, the applicant observes that, with the aim of
covering the transition between the old and new weighting
systems following the amendment of the system of Staff Regu-
lations governing the European civil service, Article 20(2) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides for a transitional
period of five years, from 1 May 2004 to 1 May 2009, during
which the weighting is to be gradually reduced.

C 132/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.5.2005

In support of his application, the applicant invokes, fundamen-
tally, an objection of illegality, on the basis of Article 241 of
the Treaty, on the ground that the application of Article 20 of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful in this case.

He claims, in that regard:

— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, owing to
the assurances which in his submission were given by the
administration to the effect that the new Staff Regulations
would have no negative impact on his situation,

— failure to respect the principles of equal treatment and non-
discrimination, owing to the differentiation established
according to the place of residence of officials in service
and in receipt of a pension,

— failure to respect his acquired rights, owing to the amend-
ment of his fundamental conditions of employment, consid-
ered as at the date of his retirement,

— breach of the principle of sound administration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission concluded that the
set-aside premium per hectare financed by an inter-trade contri-
bution in the context of the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the promo-
tional and operational activities of the controlled designations
‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’
‘Grand Rousillon’,
of origin ‘Rivesaltes’,
and ‘Banyuls’ financed by inter-trade contributions constituted
State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.

The applicants seek for that decision to be annulled, submitting
first that its statement of reasons is inadequate, in breach of
Article 253 EC, and does not enable the applicants to under-
stand the Commission's reasons for considering that the criteria
relating to State aid defined in the case-law of the Court of
Justice were satisfied in this case. The applicants also submit
that the contested decision resulted from a breach of Article 87
EC, since the Commission did not show either
the
measures in question were financed by means made available
to the national authorities or that the inter-trade contributions,
intended to finance the promotional and operational activities
of the controlled designations of origin, were attributable to the
State.

that

Action brought on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et
Fils and Others against the Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 1 April 2005 by LA PERLA S.p.A.
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-136/05)

(2005/C 132/61)

(Case T-137/05)

(2005/C 132/62)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat
Père et Fils, established in Saint-Paul de Fenouillet (France),
Comité interprofessionnel des vins doux naturels et vins de
(CIVDN), established in
liqueur à appellations contrôlées
Perpignan (France), and Comité national des interprofessionnels
des vins à appellation d'origine, established in Paris (France),
represented by Hugues Calvet and Olivier Billard, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1.1 and 1.3 of the Commission's decision of
19 January 2005 concerning the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the
CIVDN parafiscal levies implemented by France;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 1
April 2004 by LA PERLA S.p.A., represented by Renzo Maria
Morresi and Alberto Dal Ferro, lawyers.

Cielo Brands — Gestao e Investimentos Lda. was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in full the contested decision reinstating the decision
of the Cancellation Division and therefore declaring the
contested trade mark invalid;

— order Cielo Brands — Gestao e Investimentos Lda to pay
including the previous two

the costs of the proceedings,
sets of proceedings before OHIM.