Case T-378/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  — Marenco v Commission
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, pension scheme, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, wage determination

C 10/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was successful in Open Competition COM/
A/1/02 for administrators of grade A7/A6 in the agricultural
sector, was appointed an official by the contested decision of 5
January 2005. By application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations, he was graded at the new grade A*6, lower
than the former grades A7/A6 which correspond to grades
A*8/A*10 under the new system.

In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the pleas in law
which are identical to those relied on by the applicant in Case
T-207/05 (1).

(1) OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36.

Action brought on 5 October 2005 — Seegmuller v
Commission

(Case T-377/05)

(2006/C 10/44)

Language of the case: French

Asked by Commission DG RELEX whether she would accept
another delegation, the applicant also agreed to be posted to
Guinea Conakry.

As is the practice, the applicant underwent a medical examina-
tion with a view to her departure for the delegation in Guinea
Conakry. By note of 17 March 2005,
the Commission's
the applicant did not have the
medical officer stated that
required physical aptitudes to carry out her functions in that
delegation. Following that note, DG RELEX informed the appli-
cant that she could not take up the post in Guinea Conakry.
The applicant
that
decision, which was rejected by the contested decision of 5 July
2005.

therefore submitted a complaint against

In support of her action, the applicant claims that it was not
within the competence of the Director of DG RELEX to make
the decision of 15 April 2005 and that there was a misuse of
powers. Furthermore, she submits that
there were alleged
errors of assessment on the part of the Commission's medical
officer, whose report of 17 March 2005 fails to establish, she
alleges, any comprehensible link between the medical findings
which it contains and the conclusions which he draws from
them.

Action brought on 7 October 2005 — Marenco v Commis-
sion

Parties

Applicant: Magali Seegmuller (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by:
K.H. Hagenaar, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-378/05)

(2006/C 10/45)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the Decision of 5 July 2005 of

the Appointing
Authority of the European Commission which prevents the
applicant
from making her posting effective and from
taking up her post in the Guinea Conakry delegation as
head of administration of that delegation;

Applicant: Giuliano Marenco (Brussels, Belgium)
by: A. Pappalardo, M. Merola, lawyers)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— grant in principle the applicant's claim for compensation,
to be quantified at a later date, which arises from the mate-
rial and non-material harm caused to her by the defendant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of temporary staff at the Commission,
applied for the post of head of administration in Congo Brazza-
ville (Vacancy notice COM/2004/2982/F). On 5 January 2005,
she was informed that she had passed the selection board.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the determination of the applicant's salary of January

2005 (last month of service),

— to the extent that that determination fails to take into
account the increase in basic salary provided for in
Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,

— to the extent that the multiplication factor is shown as

0.9982852 instead of 1;

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/23

— annul the decision awarding and calculating the applicant's
pension rights, adopted on 31 January 2005 by the Head of
the Pensions unit of the Office for the Administration and
Payment of Individual Entitlements,

cative calculation of his pension rights which he carried out
with the assistance of an IT tool
(‘calculette’), which the
Commission provided to staff. According to the applicant, the
‘calculette’ envisaged that the increase in question would be
taken into account when determining the pension.

— to the extent

the
increase in basic salary provided for in Article 7(4) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,

fails to take into account

that

it

— to the extent that the figure 0.9982852 appears instead
of 1 in the classification at the termination of service,

— to the extent that it establishes the pension classification

as A*16/03,

— annul the decision of 1 July 2005 adopted by the Director
General of the Directorate for Personnel and Administration
(ADMIN.B. 2 — SHS/amd — D (05)15121), which rejected
both of the applicant's complaints (No R/266/05 and R/
298/05),

Action brought on 14 October 2005 — Zuffa/OHIM

(Case T-379/05)

(2006/C 10/46)

Language of the case: English

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, former Deputy Director-General of the Commis-
sion's Legal Service, who retired in February 2005, was classi-
fied, before leaving the service, at grade A*16 and benefited,
until the end of 2004, from the increase in salary provided for
in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. In accord-
ance with the amendments to the Staff Regulations which
entered into force on 1 May 2004, a multiplication factor of
0.9580274 was applicable to his basic salary, reflecting the
difference between the basic salary laid down for his grade and
step under the old and new Staff Regulations.

On 1 January 2005, the applicant reached the sixth step in his
grade. Since the basic salaries laid down for that step under the
old and new Staff Regulations are the same, the applicant takes
the view that the applicable multiplication factor should from
then on be ‘1’. However, a multiplication factor of 0.9982852
appeared, from that month onwards, both on his last salary
slip and in the decision awarding and calculating his pension
rights. In addition, the increase in salary provided for in Article
7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations was not included in
his salary for the month of January 2005 and, consequently,
was not taken into account when determining his pension
rights, which were calculated on the basis of his salary for that
month. Finally, the decision determining the pension rights
classified the applicant at step 3, instead of step 6, in his grade.

In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of
Article 2(2), of Article 7(4), and of Article 8(2) of Annex XIII to
the Staff Regulations. He also pleads infringement of his legiti-
mate expectations, allegedly arising from the result of an indi-

Applicant(s): Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, USA) [represented by: S.
Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair, Solicitor]

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

Form of order sought

— The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 August

2005 in Case R 24/2005-1 shall be annulled;

— the Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the

applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE
FIGHTING’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28 and
41 — application No 2 766 590

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of
all goods and services applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The term ULTIMATE FIGHTING, taken as a whole,
is not a generic or usual name in relation to all the claimed
goods and services. The Board of Appeal failed to adequately
analyse the whole mark in relation to all the goods and services
applied for.