Case T-189/05: Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Usinor against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), flat product, steel, trade-mark law

C 182/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

the applicant submits that

Moreover,
the ground for the
contested decision is unlawful and arbitrary if the refusal of the
Head of Department to retain her is based on adverse assess-
ments made of her in the past.

Finally, the applicant raises pleas of failure to state reasons,
breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
and of the right to be heard and manifest errors of assessment,
if the refusal of the Head of Department and/or the dismissal
are based on professional failings within the EECA department
or generally.

Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Dypna Mc Sweeney
and Pauline Armstrong against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-184/05)

(2005/C 182/74)

(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 4 May 2005 by Dypna Mc
Sweeney, residing in Brussels, and Pauline Armstrong, residing
in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier
Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

1. annul the decisions of 6 and 7 September 2004 refusing to
admit the applicants to the EPSO/C/11/03 competition tests;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants participated in the EPSO/C/11/03 competition
organised for the purposes of drawing up a reserve list of
English-language secretaries at grade C5/C4. The selection
board in that competition decided to exclude them from the
tests of that competition, on the ground that their diplomas did
not correspond to the level required by the competition notice.

In support of their action, the applicants submit that that deci-
sion infringes the competition notice and stems from a mani-
fest error of assessment.

Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Joël de Bry against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-188/05)

(2005/C 182/75)

(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 2 May 2005 by Joël De Bry,
residing in Woluwé-St-Lambert
represented by
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Belgium),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Commission's decision drawing up the applicant's

career development report for 2003.

2. order the defendant to pay a symbolic Euro to be increased

pending proceedings together with costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant alleges, first, an objective
conflict of interests on the part of his appraiser who is on the
same grade.

Furthermore, he claims that errors were made in assessing his
merits and argues that there were inconsistencies between the
comments and the marks which he was attributed.

Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the general provi-
sions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the
aims and objectives sought by the establishment of a new
system focused on career development, as well as breach of the
obligation to state reasons,
the defence, and
Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.

the rights of

Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Usinor against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-189/05)

(2005/C 182/76)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4
May 2005 by Usinor, whose registered office is in Paris, repre-
sented by Patrice de Condé, lawyer.

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of

10 February 2005;

2. order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

1. annul the implied decision of 5 September 2004, by which
the Commission refused to grant the applicant the daily
subsistence allowances following her entry into service;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

CORUS UK Limited

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
sought:

Word mark GALVALLOY —
application No
for
goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and
strip etc)

796 557,

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

Applicant

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

National word mark GALVALLIA
for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet
and strip etc)

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Registration refused

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Decision of the Opposition Divi-
sion annulled

Pleas in law:

application of Article
Incorrect
8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark, OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.

The applicant in these proceedings objects to the Appointing
Authority's refusal to grant her the daily subsistence allowances
provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-
tions. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the appli-
cation that the reason for that refusal is the fact that the period
of 120 days referred to in paragraph 2(a) of that provision was
exceeded in the present case.

In support of her claims, the applicant argues:

— breach of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
in the versions of that text before and after 1 May 2004, to
the extent
to
requirements which are not provided for by that provision,

the administration made her subject

that

— breach of the principles of sound administration, prohibi-
tion on arbitrary conduct and abuse of power, by requiring
the applicant to produce evidence that she was renting a
house,

— breach of the obligation to state reasons for a measure,

— breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discri-

mination,

— breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of offi-

cials.

Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-191/05)

(2005/C 182/77)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-198/05)

(2005/C 182/78)

(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 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire,
residing in Evere (Belguim), represented by Gilles Bounéou and
Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV,
established in Rieme-Ertvelde (Belgium),
represented by C.
Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.