Case T-361/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Genette v Commission
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, European official, action by staff, regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights

C 315/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.12.2005

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Genette v
Commission

fundamental right to effective judicial protection and the duty
of assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

(Case T-361/05)

(2005/C 315/26)

Language of the case: French

the applicant pleads that

the Belgian law of 1991
Lastly,
conflicts with Community law, specifically Article 11(2) of
Annex VIII and the principle of equal treatment.

Parties

Applicant(s): Genette (Gorze, France)
Lucas, lawyer)

(represented by: M.-A.

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Saint-Gobain
Pam SA v OHIM

(Case T-364/05)

(2005/C 315/27)

Form of order sought

Language in which the application was lodged: French

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

— annul the decision of the Head of the ‘Pensions’ Unit of 25
January 2005 rejecting the applicant's application of 31
the transfer of his pension rights
October 2004 for
acquired in Belgium (No D/1106/2004);

— annul the decision of the Director General of the ADMIN
DG of 10 June 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint
of 22 April 2005 against the decision of the Head of the
‘Pensions’ Unit of 2 February 2005 rejecting his application
of 31 October 2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an application by the applicant, a Commission offi-
cial, the pension rights he had acquired in Belgium were trans-
ferred to the Community scheme in 2002, in accordance with
the provisions of a Belgian law on that subject adopted in
1991. In 2003, Belgium adopted a new law governing those
transfers, whose provisions, according to the applicant, were
more advantageous for him.

The 1991 law provided for the possibility to withdraw the
transfer application, with the institution's agreement. The appli-
cant therefore submitted an application for the Commission to
record its agreement on the withdrawal of the application he
had submitted under the regime governed by the 1991 law, so
that he might,
submit a new application
governed by the 2003 law. That application was rejected by
the contested decision, on the ground that the Community
provisions do not provide for the possibility to withdraw an
application.

subsequently,

By his action, the applicant challenges the rejection of his
application. He points out a number of obvious errors in the
assessment of the subject of his application, the final nature of
the decisions called into question by his application, the exis-
tence of new and substantial
for
submitting the application. He also alleges infringement of
Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and of the
general provisions for its implementation.
the
the contested decisions infringe his
applicant submits that

facts and the time-limit

In addition,

Parties

Applicant: Saint-Gobain Pam SA (Nancy, France) (represented
by: J. Blanchard, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM: Propamsa SA

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision given on 15 April 2005 by the Fourth
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Saint-Gobain Pam SA

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘PAM PLUVIAL’ for
goods in Class 6 (‘pipes and tubes of metal or based on metal,
pipes and tubes of cast iron, fittings of metal for the aforesaid
goods’) and Class 17 (‘fittings, not of metal, for rigid pipes and
tubes, not of metal’).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Propamsa SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration
No 737 992 of the semi-figurative mark ‘PAM PAM’, for goods
in Class 19 (‘construction materials’), Spanish trade mark regis-
tration No 120 075 of the word mark ‘PAM’ for goods in
Class 19 (‘cements’) and International trade mark registration
No 463 089 ‘PAM’ for goods in Class 1 (‘adhesive substances
destined for industry’) and Class 19 (‘materials for construction
(non-metallic), wrought or unwrought’).