Case T-192/05: Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Franky Callewaert and Others against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, administrative reform, competition (EU), indemnification, professional career, recruitment, regulations for civil servants

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community
trade mark in respect of
which a declaration of
invalidity is sought:

The figurative mark PAN SPEZIA-
LITÄTEN for goods in Class 30
(prepared baking mixtures
for
bread, cakes, bread rolls, crois-
sants, pizzas…) — Community
trade mark No 382 374.

Proprietor of the Com-
munity trade mark:

CHIPITA INTERNATIONAL S.A.
INTERNATIONAL DIVISION

Applicant
for declara-
tion of invalidity of the
Community trade mark:

The applicant

Communities on 28 January 2005 by Anke Kröppelin, residing
in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier
Marten, Albert Coolen, Etienne Marchal and Jean-Noël Louis,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request
its decision not to award him the expatriation

to annul
allowance and the associated rights;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Decision of the Cancel-
lation Division:

Rejection of the application for a
declaration of invalidity.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

The pleas in law put forward by the applicant are the same as
those put forward by the same applicant in Case T-408/04 (1).

— The registered trade mark is
devoid of any distinctive char-
acter within the meaning of
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94.

— The trade mark is descriptive
and is
thus not capable of
being protected under Article
the Regulation as
7(1)(c) of
regards
containing
goods
cereals or manufactured with
cereal products. The
trade
mark is deceptive in the sense
of Article 7(1)(g) of the Regu-
lation as regards those goods
not containing cereals or not
manufactured
cereal
products.

with

(1) OJ 2004 C 300 of 4.12.2004, p. 50.

Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Franky Callewaert and
Others against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-192/05)

(2005/C 193/49)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Anke Kröppelin
against Council of the European Union

(Case C-T-54/05)

(2005/C 193/48)

(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

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 Franky Callewaert,
residing in Roeselare (Belgium) and Others, represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the classification in grade granted to the applicants in
their recruitments decisions, in so far as that classification is
based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regu-
lations;

C 193/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

— reconstitute the applicants' careers (including recognition of
their experience in the grade thus amended, their rights to
promotion and their pension entitlement), on the basis of
the grade to which they should have been appointed on the
basis of the competition notice following which they were
placed on the reserve recruitment list, either in the grade
appearing in that vacancy notice, or, corresponding to its
equivalent according to the classification in the new Staff
Regulations (and the appropriate step in accordance with
the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), on the basis of the
decision appointing them;

— award the applicants default interest on the basis of the rate
fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinan-
cing arrangements applicable during the relevant period,
plus two percentage points, on all sums corresponding to
the difference between the salary corresponding to their
classification in the recruitment decision and the classifica-
tion to which they should have been entitled up to the date
of the decision properly classifying them in grade;

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same
as those in Case T-58/05 and similar to those in Cases T-130/
05, T-160/05, T-162/05, T-164/05, T-170/05 and T-183/05.

Action brought on 19 May 2005 by N.V. Deloitte Business
the European
Advisory against

the Commission of

Communities

(Case T-195/05)

(2005/C 193/50)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, which was in a consortium with other undertak-
ings, submitted a tender, under the name EUPHET, in response
to the invitation to tender for the ‘Sanco Evaluation Framework
Contract, Lot 1 (Public Health) — tender No SANCO/2004/01/
041’, issued by the European Commission. In the application,
the applicant seeks annulment of the European Commission's
decision not to select EUPHET for the contract, as well as
annulment of the award decision, not served on and unknown
to the applicant, by which the contract was awarded to a third
party.

In support of its application, the applicant pleads infringement
of Article 94 of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (1) and infringement of Articles 138 and 147(3)
of Regulation No 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Regulation No 1605/2002. (2) The applicant
also pleads breach of the tender documents, of the general duty
to state reasons and of the principle of the protection of legiti-
mate expectations.

According to the applicant, the reason stated for exclusion,
namely that the proposal for measures to prevent a conflict of
interest was inadequate and did not provide a sufficient guar-
antee,
is completely unlawful and in breach of the contract
documents. The applicant maintains that it is sufficient that the
contractor undertake, by signing the draft contract, to inform
the Commission immediately of any conflict of interest and to
take the necessary steps to resolve such conflict as soon as
possible. The applicant also states that it proposed measures
which went further than what was required.

The applicant further claims that it was not at any time invited
to supply additional information. According to the applicant,
that constitutes an infringement of Article 146(3) of Regulation
No 2342/2002, a breach of the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations, of the principle of the right
to be
treated fairly and of the principle of non-discrimination, as well
as an infringement of Articles 89(1) and 99 of Regulation No
1605/2002.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 May 2005 by N.V. Deloitte Busi-
ness Advisory, Brussels, represented by Dirk Van Heuven, Steve
Ronse and Sofie Logie, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

(1) 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 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23
December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of 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 2002 L 357, p. 1).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the contested decisions;

2. order the defendant to pay all the costs.