Case C-103/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, action by staff, appeal, staff assessment

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/3

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the appeal admissible;

— declare the appeal to be well founded;

Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis
against
the Court of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in
Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament

judgment

delivered

the

by

(Case C-103/07 P)

(2007/C 129/04)

Language of the case: French

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 December
2006 in Case T-138/03;

Parties

— order the case to be referred back to the Court of First

Instance to rule on the appellants' claims.

Appellant: Angel Angelidis (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

By their appeal, the appellants seek to have the contested judg-
ment set aside in so far as it rejected their application as being
partly inadmissible and partly unfounded.

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded and, accord-

ingly,

First, as regards the admissibility of their appeal, the appellants
submit that the reasoning of the Court is contradictory and
that, by holding that the action for compensation resulting from
the infection and death of Mr H.E.R was brought after the
expiry of the 5-year limitation period, the Court violated both
Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 6(1)
of
the European Convention for the Protection of Human
the
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
appellants submit that since at the time their applications were
considered they did not have epidemiological data capable of
accurately pinpointing the date of on which their relatives
became infected, the Court could not declare that their action
was time-barred.

In that connection,

Second, as regards the consideration of the substance of the
case, the appellants submit that the Court also adopted contra-
dictory reasoning and violated Article 6(1) of the convention
cited above, on one hand, by basing its judgment on old reports
and by failing to taken account of the most recent epidemiolo-
gical data and, on the other hand, by holding that the existence
of a causal
link between the harm alleged and the alleged
unlawful conduct by the Community institutions was not estab-
lished.

— set aside the judgment of

Instance
of the European Communities of 5 December 2006 in Case
T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament;

the Court of First

— annul the staff report for 2001;

— award damages and interest for non material harm and
harm to the his career, both on account of substantial irre-
gularities and substantial delay in the writing of the staff
report 2001 in a particularly distressing period for the
appellant,

— order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with
Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, the appellant criticises the Court of First Instance
for having committed a number of errors of law in the interpre-
tation of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials
of the European Communities and the general provisions imple-
menting those articles. More specifically, those errors concerned
the broad interpretation by the Court of the limited situations
in which an exception may be made to the rule that the staff
report must be drafted and countersigned by two different
members of hierarchy of the official under appraisal, and the

C 129/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2007

interpretation by the Court that there is no need to consult the
official's previous immediate hierarchical superior. As regards
those two issues, the contested judgment suffers from numerous
defects in the reasoning of the Court, which also misinterpreted
the scope of several documents submitted to it by the appellant.

Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by Ferrero
Deutschland GmbH against the judgment delivered by the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 15 December
2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain

(Case C-108/07 P)

(2007/C 129/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant:
M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)

Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (represented

by:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Cornu SA
Fontain

put forward in its judgment should have led to the conclusion
that those marks have an average degree or even high degree of
similarity. Fourth, the Court failed to take sufficient account of
the documents submitted by the appellant in order to highlight
the highly distinctive character of the mark ‘Ferrero’. Finally, in
its assessment of
the Court
committed an error of law by failing to take account of the
many factors mentioned in the seventh recital in the preamble
to Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

the likelihood of confusion,

(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado
Contencioso-Administrativo No 22 of Madrid (Spain) of
12 March 2007 — Asociación Ecologistas en Acción-CODA
v Ayuntamiento de Madrid

(Case C-142/07)

(2007/C 129/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 22 of Madrid

Form of order sought

Parties to the main proceedings

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-314/04 Ferrero
Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu SA Fontain;

Applicant: Spanish Government and the Autonomous Com-
munity of Madrid

— order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Questions referred

The appellant puts forward a single plea in law in support of its
appeal, alleging an infringement of Community law by the
Court of First Instance and, more specifically, that it incorrectly
interpreted Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94
of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1). In
that connection, the applicant puts forward the following five
arguments.

First, the Court failed to take account of the fact that the salted
and sweet goods concerned are produced and marketed to a
relevant extent by the same undertakings, including the inter-
vener itself. Second, the Court committed an error of law by
holding that
the goods concerned are only slightly similar,
whereas, in this case, it should have found at least an average
degree of similarity. Third, the Court committed an error of law
by attributing only ‘a certain degree of similarity’ to the marks
‘Ferrero’ and ‘Ferro’, whereas the arguments that the Court itself

assessments

1) Are the procedural requirements relating to environmental
impact
from Council Directive
arising
85/377/EEC (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC,
of 3 March 1977 applicable to urban road projects, having
regard to their nature, size and effect on densely populated
areas or on landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeolo-
gical significance?

assessments

2) Are the procedural requirements relating to environmental
from Council Directive
arising
impact
85/377/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC, of
3 March 1997 (2)applicable to the projects which form the
subject-matter of
appeal procedure,
having regard to their nature, the nature of the road on
which they are to be carried out, their characteristics, size,
effect on the surrounding area, density of population, budget
and the possible splitting up of a larger project which
contemplates similar works on the same road?

administrative

this