Case T-442/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Walderdorff v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2003 Promotion procedure — Decision not to promote — Award of promotion points — Consideration of the comparative merits — Equal treatment — General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/21

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 —
Parlante v Commission

(Case T-432/04) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Promotion — Promotions proce-
dure 2003 — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion
points — Consideration of comparative merits — Equal treat-
ment — General implementing provisions of Article 45 of the
illegality — Legitimate
Staff Regulations — Plea of

expectations)

(2007/C 170/38)

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall, initially, and subsequently by C. Berardis-
Kayser and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the Appointing Authority's
decision of 2 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint
against that authority's decision not to promote her to Grade
C2 for the 2003 promotion procedure and, secondly, in so far
as necessary, of the original decision which was the subject of
that complaint.

Parties

Applicant: Walter Parlante (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: L.
Vogel, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

Re:

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

Application for annulment of (1) the Appointing Authority's
decision of 5 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint
against that same authority's decision to refuse him promotion
to Grade C1 under the 2003 procedure and (2), in so far as it is
necessary, the decision which was the subject of that complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 —
Walderdorff v Commission

(Case T-442/04) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2003 Promotion
procedure — Decision not to promote — Award of promotion
points — Consideration of the comparative merits — Equal
treatment — General provisions for implementing Article 45
of the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Legitimate
expectations)

(2007/C 170/40)

Language of the case: French

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 —
Davi v Commission

Parties

(Case T-433/04) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2003 Promotion
procedure — Decision not to promote — Award of promotion
points — Consideration of the comparative merits — Equal
treatment — General provisions for implementing Article 45
of the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Legitimate
expectations)

(2007/C 170/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angela Davi
L. Vogel, lawyer)

(Brussels, Belgium)

(represented by:

Applicant: Andrea Walderdorff (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall, initially, and subsequently by G. Berscheid
and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the Appointing Authority's
decision of 19 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint
against that authority's decision not to promote her to Grade
A4 for the 2003 promotion procedure and, secondly, in so far
as necessary, of the original decision which was the subject of
that complaint.

C 170/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Waterford Wedgwood plc to
pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the appli-
cant.

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 —
v OHIM —
Assembled

(Proprietary)

Investments

Waterford Wedgwood (WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH)

(Case T-105/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for the figurative Community mark WATERFORD
STELLENBOSCH — Earlier Community word mark
WATERFORD — Relative ground for refusal — No likeli-
hood of confusion — Absence of similarity between the goods
— Absence of complementarity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 170/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Assembled

Ltd
Applicant:
(Stellenbosch, South Africa) (represented by: P. Hagmann and S.
Ziegler, Lawyers)

(Proprietary)

Investments

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Folliard-
(Trade Marks
Monguiral, Agent)

(represented by: A.

and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM,
intervener before the Court of First Instance: Waterford Wedgwood
plc (Waterford, Ireland) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, Lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 15 December 2004 (Case R 240/2004-1) relating
to opposition proceedings between Waterford Wedgwood and
Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of

15 December 2004 (Case R 240/2004-1);

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2007 —
Grether v OHIM — Crisgo (FENNEL)

(Case T-167/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for the figurative Community trade mark FENNEL —
Earlier Community word mark FENJAL — Relative ground for
refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b),
Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 170/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grether AG (Binningen, Switzerland) (represented by:
initially, V. von Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and A. Renck, and
subsequently, V. von Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and T. Dolde,
lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks
Folliard-
Monguiral, Agent)

(represented by: A.

and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Crisgo (Thailand) Co.
Ltd (Samutsakom, Thailand) (represented by: A. Bensoussan, M.
Haas and L. Tellier-Loniewski, lawyers)

Re:

against

brought

Fourth
the
Action
Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2004
(Case R 250/2002-4)
concerning opposition proceedings
between Grether AG and Crisgo (Thailand) Co. Ltd.

decision

the

of

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.