Case T-410/05: Action brought on  14 November 2005  — Eerola v Commission
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants

C 48/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2005
— Bustec Ireland v OHIM

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-218/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the
opposition — No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 48/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bustec Ireland (Shanon, County Clare, Ireland) (repre-
sented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez,
lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo,
Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Mustek, S.L. (Barcelona, Spain)

Action

brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 22 March 2005 (Case R 1125/2004-2) relating to
opposition proceedings brought against the registration of the
Community trade mark BUSTEC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares it no longer necessary to give judgment on the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 182 of 23.7.2005.

Action lodged on 31 October 2005 — Multikauf v OHIM

(Case T-395/05)

(2006/C 48/67)

Language of the case: German

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2005 — served on the
applicant's agent by DHL on 31 August 2005 — in appeal
proceedings R 895/2004-1

— dismiss the objection raised by the third party through its
agent on 18 September 2001 to registration of the Com-
munity trade mark 1841121 ‘webmulti’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘webmulti’ for
goods and services in Classes 3, 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 25 and 30
— Registration application No 1 841 121

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in opposition proceedings: Demo
Holding S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community, national and
international word and figurative marks ‘WEB’ for goods in
Classes 3, 9 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was allowed
and the registration in respect of certain goods referred to in
the application was refused

Decision of
dismissed

the Board of Appeal: The applicant's appeal was

Pleas in law: The opposing marks were not used for some of the
goods.

Action brought on 14 November 2005 — Eerola v
Commission

(Case T-410/05)

(2006/C 48/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Iiro Eerola (Brussels, Belgium)
Applicant:
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented by: S.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Multikauf Warenhandelsgesellschaft mBH (Krailling,
Germany) (represented by: M. Bahmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Demo
Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission refusing to grant to
the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in
Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/35

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, of Finnish nationality, was appointed an official
the Commission on 1 October 2004. The Commission
of
refused to grant him the expatriation allowance, considering
that during the reference period, from 1 January 1999 to 31
December 2004, the applicant was living in Belgium.

The applicant contests that decision, claiming that the period
from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003, during which he
worked in Brussels as scientific advisor at the Academy of
Finland, should not be taken into account since the Academy
does not have a distinct legal personality but is part of the
Finnish State. On that basis, the applicant pleads infringement
of the first paragraph of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations, and an error of law.

Action brought on 18 November 2005 — ‘M’ v
Ombudsman

(Case T-412/05)

(2006/C 48/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): ‘M’ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vander-
sanden, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

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

— hold that

the European Community has incurred non-
contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article
288 EC as a result of wrongful acts or omissions committed
by the European Ombudsman in the performance of his
duties, specifically as a result of the publication of his
report 1288/99/OV wrongfully naming the applicant, and
as a result of the European Ombudsman's negligence in
investigating the matter and the incorrect conclusions he
arrived at;

— consequently, order the European Community, represented
by the European Ombudsman, to pay the applicant by way
of compensation for professional and non-material damage
and for damage to his health a sum provisionally assessed
at EUR 150 000, without prejudice to any subsequent
amendment in the course of the proceedings;

— order the European Community, represented by the Euro-

pean Ombudsman, to pay the costs.

By complaint brought before the European Ombudsman, a
group of citizens sought a finding that there had been an
instance of maladministration within the Commission in its
handling of a complaint lodged by those citizens against their
national authorities. By decision issued on 18 July 2002, the
Ombudsman found that there had been an instance of malad-
ministration and unfair treatment of the complaint on the part
of the Commission.

The purpose of the present action, which has been brought by
an official of the Commission unit responsible for handling the
complaint at issue, is to seek compensation for damage alleg-
edly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been
named in person in Decision 1288/99/OV and alleged negli-
gence by the European Ombudsman in his investigation of the
complaint and in the conclusions he arrived at in that decision.
The applicant contends that after
the decision had been
published he was named in a press release issued by the Euro-
pean Ombudsman, and this was reproduced in various newspa-
pers and on internet websites, which caused him to suffer
damage. In the applicant's view, the damage allegedly suffered
is especially serious as he holds an important position and the
the European Ombudsman's decision could
publication of
seriously undermine his professional integrity.

The applicant bases his claim on the second paragraph of
Article 288 EC, establishing the non-contractual liability of the
European Community, which, according to the applicant, has
been incurred in the present case as a result of the allegedly
wrongful conduct on the part of the Ombudsman.

the applicant alleges that,

In support of his claim,
in the
present case, the Ombudsman committed a serious breach of
his duties by naming individuals — including the applicant —
in person in his report in breach of the principles of confidenti-
ality and proportionality insofar as the publication of the appli-
cant's name was not, in the applicant's view, absolutely neces-
sary and could not be justified by any exception to the general
rule of confidentiality (1).

the

that

claims

conduct

applicant

Moreover,
the
Ombudsman and his staff constitutes a breach of the audi
alterem partem principle, which forms a fundamental element of
the right to a fair hearing. He also submits that it is forbidden
to make an adverse judgment on a natural or legal person in a
report that is to be published after general disclosure and is to
be widely circulated.

of

Lastly, the applicant also claims that, in adopting the decision
at issue, the Ombudsman made an incorrect assessment of the
facts and based himself on inadequate information.

(1) In support of his claim, the applicant relies, inter alia, on Case C-
315/99 P ISMERI-EUROPA v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I-5281.