Case T-365/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Mische/Parliament
Date: 2005-09-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, damages, personnel administration, recruitment, regulations for civil servants

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/15

Decision of the Opposition Division: upheld the opposition and
rejected the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law:

Infringement of the principle of continuity in terms of their
functions between the various departments of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market in that a decision that a
party appearing before the authorities ruling at first instance
which has failed to provide evidence as to matters of fact or
law within the prescribed time-limits cannot, pursuant
to
Article 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Com-
munity trade mark, rely on such evidence before the Board of
Appeal is contrary to that principle.

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of that Regulation.

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Mische/Parlia-
ment

(Case T-365/05)

(2005/C 315/28)

Language of the case: English

— grant the award of damages with (i) Aintérêts de retard@,
compensation for his prejudice to his career, and (ii) other
damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the
the transitional provision contained in
application of
Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as
of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contribu-
tions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal
pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later
stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et
bono, at a minimum of 10 000 euros per year;

— order that the Parliament pays all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official appointed after the entry into force of
the new Staff Regulations on 1st May 2004, but from a reserve
list drawn up on the basis of a competition organised before
that date, contests his appointment grade. He invokes the same
pleas and arguments he had already invoked in Case T-288/
05 (1).

(1) OJ C 229, 17/09/05, p. 35

Action brought on 23 September 2005 — UPC France v
Commission

(Case T-367/05)

(2005/C 315/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by:
G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, lawyers]

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Parties

Applicant(s): UPC France Holding BV (Schiphol-Rijk, Nether-
lands) (represented by: M.D. Powell and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Form of order sought

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

— Order the cancellation of

the grading given on the 4
October 2004 in the appointment decision of the Nomi-
nating Authority which was to take effect 16 November to
grade him on his recruitment to DG Competition as ‘junior
lawyer’ at category A*, grade 6, step 1, implying the rein-
statement of all his rights as deriving from a legal and
regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of
16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3
grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent
according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regu-
lations (A*8/3);

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision State Aid No 382/2004 —

France;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.