Case T-35/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth Agne-Dapper against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, retired person

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/35

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 February 2005

in Case T-406/03 Nicolas Ravailhe v Committee of the
Regions of the European Union (1)

(Officials — Prior administrative procedure — Inadmissi-
bility)

Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers, against the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto), the other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been
Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited, established in New South
Wales (Australia) — action against the decision of the First
Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2004 (Case R
148/2002-1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of J. Pirrung, President, N. J. Forwood and S. Papa-
savvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 January
2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(2005/C 143/66)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-406/03: Nicolas Ravailhe, a former member of the
temporary staff of the Committee of the Regions of the Euro-
pean Union, residing in Amiens (France), represented by J.-P.
Brodsky, against Committee of the Regions of the European
Union (Agent: P. Cervilla, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) —
application, primarily, against
the authority
empowered to conclude contracts of employment to reinstate
the applicant in his post and restore his rights under the Staff
Regulations as a member of
the
Committee of the Regions of the European Union or, in the
alternative, for payment of compensation — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F.
Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 14 February 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows:

the temporary staff of

the refusal of

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth Agne-
Dapper against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.

(Case T-35/05)

(2005/C 143/68)

(Language of the case: French)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 12 January 2005

in Case T-268/04 Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de
Spa v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of
opposition — No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 143/67)

(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 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth
Agne-Dapper, Schoorl
(Netherlands), and 172 others, repre-
sented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finch-
elstein, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

1. declare the application,

including the plea of

illegality

contained in it, admissible and well-founded;

2. accordingly, annul the applicants' pension statements for
the
May 2004, which will entail
weighting set according to the capital of their country of
residence or, at
the very least, of a weighting which
correctly reflects the differences in the cost of living in the
places where the applicants are deemed to incur expenditure
and thus observes the principle of equivalence;

the application of

In Case T-268/04: Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa,
established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E.

3. order the Commission to pay the costs.

C 143/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in this case are all officials who retired before 1
May 2004. They contest the transitional scheme set up pending
the abolition of weightings by Council Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff
Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the
Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European
Communities (1) in so far as that scheme is based on a new
calculation of the ‘pension’ weightings which are no longer
calculated according to the cost of living in the capital, but
according to the average cost of living in the Member State
where the recipient of the pension provides evidence of having
established his main residence.

In support of their claims the applicants first submit that the
regulation cited is based on erroneous grounds in so far as
neither the further integration of
the Community nor the
freedom of movement and residence, nor the difficulty of veri-
fying the actual place of residence of pensioners can serve as a
basis for the transitional scheme at issue.

cour, Ahlen-Vorhelm (Germany), Franz-Albrecht Metternich-
Sandor, Prinz von Ratibor and Corvey, Höxter (Germany),
Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein, Thumby (Germany) and
the town of Schloß Holte-Stukenbrock (Germany), represented
by T. Giesen, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul

the Commission's Decision of 7 December 2004
adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1), the
list of sites of Community importance for:

1. the Continental biogeographical region

2. the Atlantic biogeographical region

(notified under documents numbers C(2004) 4031 and
C(2004) 4032) insofar as it concerns the property or terri-
torial sovereignty of the applicants;

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

The applicants also submit that the principles of equality, legal
certainty, retroactivity of acquired rights and the protection of
legitimate expectations have been infringed in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 124, 27.04.2004, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Hinrich
Bavendam and others against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-80/05)

(2005/C 143/69)

(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 17 February 2005 by Hinrich
Bavendam, Bremen (Germany), Günther Früchtnicht, Bremen
(Germany), Hinrich Geerken, Bremen (Germany), Hans-Jürgen
Weyhausen-Brinkmann, Bremen (Germany), Curt-Hildebrand v.
Einsiedel, Leipzig (Germany), Christina Gräfin von Schall-Riau-

The applicants are either proprietors of entire sites or of large
parts of sites declared by the contested decision to be sites of
Community importance, which, the applicants submit, restricts
their property rights.

The applicants submit that the selection criteria used for adding
to the list of sites of Community importance were not met
since the habitat types and species decisive to the selection are
either not to be found at all or are not sufficiently representa-
tive.

The applicants contend further that:

— essential procedural requirements under Article 6(2),

(3)
and (4) or under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC were
infringed,

— the Treaty was infringed as the selection decision which
formed the basis of the listing at national level was already
erroneous,

— the Commission abused its discretion in adding all of the
sites put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany to
the list without exception.

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