Case T-58/08 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06, Roodhuijzen v Commission
Date: 2008-02-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, equal treatment, health insurance, marriage

C 92/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought by the appellant

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the
judgment of 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06 Dittert v
Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled
its decision allocating to the applicant at first instance a number
of priority points insufficient for him to be promoted in promo-
tion year 2005 and its decision finalising the list of officials
promoted during that promotion year inasmuch as it does not
include the applicant's name.

In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in
law seeking annulment.

Firstly, the Commission submits that the CST wrongly applied
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that it attributed excessive
importance to the involvement of the Director General in the
procedure for allocating points,
thus restricting unduly the
discretion of the Appointing Authority following the finding
that
the lack of such involvement constituted a substantial
procedural error.

Secondly, the Commission submits that the CST infringed the
jurisdiction of the Appointing Authority in breach of Article 45
of the Regulations and exceeded its powers of judicial control
by addressing an instruction to the Appointing Authority.

Thirdly, the Commission alleges that the CST failed to give suffi-
cient reasons for the finding that the allocation to the applicant
at first instance of a certain number of priority points by the
Promotion Committee did not constitute an adequate remedy
for the procedural error classified by the Tribunal as ‘substantial’
consisting in the lack of involvement of the Director General.
Moreover, it claims that the CST based the contested judgment
on a distortion of the contents of minutes of a meeting of the
Promotion Committee.

— Annul

the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06 Carpi Badía v Commis-
sion and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the
judgment of 22 November 2007 in Case F-110/06 Carpi Badía v
Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled
its decision allocating to the applicant at first instance a number
of priority points insufficient for him to be promoted in promo-
tion year 2005 and its decision finalising the list of officials
promoted during that promotion year inasmuch as it does not
include the applicant's name.

In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in
law seeking annulment
to those raised in Case
identical
T-51/08 P Commission v Dittert.

Appeal brought on 8 February 2008 by Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment of the Civil
Service Tribunal delivered on 27 November 2007 in Case
F-122/06, Roodhuijzen v Commission

(Case T-58/08 P)

(2008/C 92/77)

Language of the case: French

Appeal brought on 5 February 2008 by Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment of the Civil
Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case
F-110/06, Carpi Badía v Commission

Parties

(Case T-52/08 P)

(2008/C 92/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

party

Other
(Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)

proceedings:

the

to

José María Carpi Badía

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

party

Other
(Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)

the proceedings: Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen

to

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul

the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commis-
sion;

— dismiss the action brought by Mr Roodhuijzen;

— order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present
appeal and of the action before the Court of First Instance.

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/39

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the
judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2007 in
Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission, which annuls the deci-
sion of the Commission refusing to recognise the non-marital
partnership of the applicant as regards the Joint Sickness Insur-
ance Scheme of the European Communities.

In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in
law seeking annulment.

By its first plea, the Commission submits that the CST ruled
ultra vires in breach of Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations and in breach of the principle of non-discrimina-
tion, in that it rejected the appellant's argument relating thereto
and substituted its own without, however, permitting the
Commission to respond thereto, accordingly failing to respect
the rights of the defence.

The second plea alleges an error of law in the interpretation of
the notion of
‘partnership’ as contained in Article 1(2) of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, entitling the partner of an
official to be covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.

The third plea, raised in the alternative, alleges incorrect inter-
pretation of the principle of non-discrimination.

Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Nute Partecipazione
and La Perla v OHIM — Worldgem Brands (NIMEI LA
PERLA MODERN CLASSIC)

(Case T-59/08)

(2008/C 92/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Nute Partecipazione Spa (Bologna, Italy) and La Perla
Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: R. Morresi and A. del Ferro,
lawyers)

— Annul and alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 19 November 2007 on the ground of misappli-
cation of Article 8(5) and infringement of Articles 63(6), 73
and 74 of the regulation on the Community trade mark;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2007 on the ground of
misapplication of Article 8(5)
infringement of
Articles 63(6), 73 and 74 of the regulation on the Com-
munity trade mark;

and

— in the further alternative, annul and/or alter the decision of
the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November
2007 on the ground of misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of
the regulation on the Community trade mark and infringe-
ment of Articles 63(6), 73 and 74 of the regulation on the
Community trade mark;

— in any event, order OHIM and Worldgem Brands Srl, jointly
and severally,
the proceedings,
to pay the costs of all
including the costs relating to the proceedings before the
Second Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of
invalidity has been sought: Community word mark ‘NIMEI LA
PERLA MODERN CLASSIC’
registration
No 713.446) for goods in Class 14. That trade mark has already
been the subject of an earlier application for a declaration of
invalidity. The decision rejecting that earlier application by the
First Board of Appeal was annulled by judgment of the Court of
First Instance in Case T-137/05 La Perla v OHIM — Worldgem
Brands (1).

(application for

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: WORLDGEM BRANDS
Srl

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the applicant.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the reputation of a
in
number of
Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25 and 35.

Italian figurative marks

for goods

‘PERLA’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: granted the application and
declared that the registration of the Community trade mark in
question was invalid.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulled the contested decision
and granted in part the application for a declaration of inva-
lidity.

Pleas in law: infringement of provisions of law and misinterpre-
tation and misapplication of Articles 63, 73 and 74 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. In the
alternative: infringement of provisions of law and misapplica-
tion of Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

(1) Not yet published in the ECR.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Worldgem Brands Srl (Olmo di Creazzo, Italy)