Joined Cases T-35/05, T-61/05, T-107/05, T-108/05 and T-139/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others (Officials — Pensions — Application of the weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection of illegality)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, retired person

C 331/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December
2006 — Angelidis v Parliament

(Case T-424/04) (1)

(Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No
consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement
of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment
— Non-material damage — Admissibility)

(2006/C 331/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
sented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha
Pacha and J. de Wachter, Agents)

Re:

In the first place, annulment of the staff report relating to the
applicant, an official in Grade A 3 of the European Parliament,
for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 and,
second, application for compensation in respect of the harm
allegedly suffered by reason both of the alleged irregularities in
the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment

Defendant: Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touris-
tikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion
(Aigio, Greece) (represented by: A. Masoulas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought pursuant to Article 238 EC for the recovery of
sums advanced within the framework of Contract FAIR-CT98-
9544, terminated by the Commission for failure by the defen-
dant to perform its contractual obligations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

to

pay

1. Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon —
Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon
Ergasion,
sum of
EUR 154 383,53, plus interest at the rate set by the European
Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage
points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus
2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final
discharge;

Commission

the

the

to

2. Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to
pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defen-
dant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of
the costs of the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December
2006 — Commission v Parthenon

(Case T-7/05) (1)

(Arbitration clause — Fourth framework programme of activ-
ities in the field of research and technological development
and demonstration — Recovery of sums advanced)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November
2006 — Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and
Others

(Joined Cases T-35/05, T-61/05, T-107/05, T-108/05 and T-
139/05) (1)

(Officials — Pensions — Application of the weighting calcu-
lated by reference to the average cost of living in the country
of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the regu-
lation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials from 1
May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection
of illegality)

(2006/C 331/85)

Language of the case: French

(2006/C 331/84)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

In Case T-35/05,

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis,
lawyer)

Applicants: Elisabeth Agne-Dapper (Schoorl, Netherlands) and
the other former officials of the Commission of the European
Communities whose names are set out in the annex to the judg-
ment (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A.
Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi)

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/39

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Joris and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European
Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

In Case T-61/05,

Applicants: Cornelius Rozemeijer (Alkmaar, Netherlands), Gaston
Vaesken (Saint-Mandrier, France) and Pierrette Vaesken (Sanary-
sur-Mer, France)
(represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L.
Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden,
L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.
Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

In Case T-107/05,

Applicant: François Muller (Strasbourg, France) (represented initi-
ally by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subse-
quently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of
the European Communities
(represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and M. Bavendamm,
Agents)

In Case T-108/05,

Applicant: Suzy Frederic-Leemans (Lahas, France)
(represented
initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and
subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
(represented by: M. Bermejo Garde and E. Fierro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European
Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

In Case T-139/05,

Applicants: Charlotte Becker (Menton, France), Seamus Killeen
(Dublin, Ireland), Robert Payne (Dublin, Ireland), Paul Van Raij
(Overeen, Netherlands), Wilhelmus Van Miltenburg (Huizen,
(repre-
Netherlands) and Deirdre Gallagher (Dublin,
sented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein,
and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Ireland)

1. Dismisses the actions as inadmissible.

2. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November
2006 — Camper v OHIM — JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER)

(Case T-43/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for Community figurative trade mark BROTHERS by
CAMPER — Earlier national
trade marks
BROTHERS — Inadmissibility — Relative ground for refusal
— Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

figurative

(2006/C 331/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Camper, SL, (Inca, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño
Ceniceros, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves,
agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: JC AB, (Mölnlycke,
Sweden), (represented by P. Hedberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Chamber of the
Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2004 (Case R
170/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between JC AB
and Camper SL.

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha-
Pascha, L. Knudsen and K. Zejdova, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European
Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

Re:

In essence, annulment of the applicants' pension statements —
and, in one case only, of the payslip of an applicant assigned to
non-active status — of May 2004, in so far as those pension
statements and payslips apply for the first time a weighting
calculated illegally by reference to the cost of living in the appli-
cants' respective countries of residence, and no longer in rela-
tion to the cost of living in the capital of each of those coun-
tries.

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred
by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs);

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.