Case T-214/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2007 — Vounakis v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Career Development Report — 2003 Evaluation exercise — Definition of goals to achieve — Duty to state reasons — Inconsistency between points and comments — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2007-11-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, report, staff assessment

C 8/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November
2007 — Ianniello v Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented initially by J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, and later by
J. Currall and I. Martínez del Peral, Agents)

(Case T-308/04) (1)

(Civil service — Officials — Career evaluation report —
2001/2002 evaluation period — Action for annulment —
Action for damages)

Re:

(2008/C 8/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Francesco Ianniello (Brussels, Belgium)
by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of
the Commission's decision of 10 May 2004
declaring the applicant's absence improper from 16 March
2004 and suspending payment her salary from 15 April 2004
until the date on which she commenced performing her duties
at the DG Press and Communication in Brussels.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

Annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the
2001/2002 evaluation period and payment of compensation for
the non-material suffered.

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 132 of 28.5.2005.

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision adopting the applicant's career evaluation

report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of

the applicant.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November
2007 — Vounakis v Commission

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10 2004.

(Case T-214/05) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — Career Development Report —
2003 Evaluation exercise — Definition of goals to achieve —
Duty to state reasons — Inconsistency between points and
comments — Manifest error of assessment)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November
2007 — P v Commission

(2008/C 8/23)

(Case T-103/05) (1)

Language of the case: French

(Civil service — Remuneration — Improper absence — Loss
of the benefit of remuneration — Article 59 of the Staff
Regulations — Medical certificate)

(2008/C 8/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hippocrate Vounakis (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium)
(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen,
J.-N. Louis and É.
Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant: P (Barcelona, Spain)
Ponsati, lawyer)

(represented by: M. Griful

i

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/13

Re:

Re:

the Commission decision of
Application for annulment of
13 July 2004 adopting the applicant's definitive career develop-
ment report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1068/2004-1), relating
to opposition proceedings between Fujitsu Siemens Computers
GmbH and Gateway, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. annuls the decision of 13 July 2004 adopting the career develop-
ment report in respect of Mr Hippocrate Vounakis for the period
from 1 January until 31 December 2003 as far as concerns the
heading ‘Productivity’;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

2. Orders Gateway, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs).

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November
2007 — GATEWAY v OHIM — Fujitsu Siemens Computers
(ACTIVY Media Gateway)

(Case T-434/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
the Community word mark ACTIVY Media
cation for
Gateway — Earlier Community and national word and figura-
tive marks Gateway and GATEWAY — Relative grounds for
refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Absence of similarity
between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2008/C 8/24)

Language of the case: English

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November
2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann
(TEK)

(Case T-458/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Applica-
tion for the Community word mark TEK — Subject-matter of
the proceedings — Observance of the rights of the defence —
Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character —
Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 8/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gateway, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (repre-
sented initially by: C.R. Jones and P. Massey, and subsequently
by C.R. Jones and E.S. Mackenzie, solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
J. Laporta Insa,
Agent)

(represented by:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Parties

Applicant: Tegometall
Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann, lawyer)

International AG (Lengwil-Oberhofen,

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
J. Weberndörfer,
Agent)

(represented by:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervener before the Court of First
Instance: Wuppermann AG
(Leverkusen, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Huisken, and
subsequently by I. Friedhoff, lawyers)