Case T-107/07 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 February 2007 in Case F-42/05 Rossi Ferreras v Commission
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 129/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2007

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition
Division's decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Action brought on 8 April 2007 — Spira v Commission

Pleas in law: The trade marks in question are confusingly similar
and the goods applied for are identical to those covered by the
opposition trade marks.

(Case T-108/07)

(2007/C 129/36)

Language of the case: English

Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by Francisco Rossi
Ferreras against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
delivered on 1 February 2007 in Case F-42/05 Rossi
Ferreras v Commission

(Case T-107/07 P)

(2007/C 129/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA (Antwerpen, Belgium)
J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven, F. Louis and
(represented by:
A. Vallery, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Parties

Appellant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxemburg, Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of

1 February 2007 in Case F-42/05;

— grant

the forms of order

sought by the appellant at
first instance and, primarily, declare the application in Case
F-42/05 to be admissible and well founded;

— in the alternative,

remit

the case to the Civil Service

Tribunal;

— make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the

Commission to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant seeks the annulment of the judg-
ment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing his application for
the annulment of his career development report for the period
from 1 January to 31 December 2003 and an order requiring
the Commission to compensate him for the damage that he
claims to have suffered.

In support of his appeal, the appellant claims that the Civil
Service Tribunal made several errors of law in its consideration
of the two pleas in law put forward at first instance.

— Annul

the

Commission

January
2007, pursuant
to Article 7(2) of Council Regulation
No 773/2004, in case COMP/38.826/B-2 — Spira/De Beers/
DTC Supplier of Choice;

decision

26

of

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 26 January
2007 in competition Case COMP/38.826/B-2 — Spira/De
Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice, by which the Commission
rejected the applicant's complaint regarding violations of Arti-
cles 81 and 82 EC in connection with the Supplier of Choice
system applied by the De Beers Group for the distribution of
rough diamonds, with the reasoning that there is not sufficient
Community interest to act further on the applicant's complaint.

The applicant alleges that De Beers — a producer of rough
diamonds who, according to the applicant, was mainly involved
upstream with the sale of rough diamonds — is trying through
the
its Supplier of Choice system to extend its control of
market to cover the entire diamond pipeline from mine to
consumer, i.e. also the downstream markets.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes three pleas
in law.

the applicant claims that

Firstly,
the Commission failed to
honour its duty to conduct a careful and impartial investigation
of the complaint and to examine with proper care and imparti-
ality the anticompetitive practices denounced in the complaint.

Secondly, the applicant alleges that the Commission could not
claim that there was a lack of sufficient Community interest to
act on the complaint, in light of the size of the undertaking
involved, the geographic scope of the anticompetitive practices
and the damage to competition and the internal market caused
by the infringements.