Case T-280/08: Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Perry v Commission
Date: 2008-07-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU aid, European Commission, action by staff, fraud against the EU, humanitarian aid

C 260/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.10.2008

Secondly, the appellants maintain, as regards paragraphs 39
to 41 of the contested order, that, in not having discounted the
possibility that the undertaking by the European Parliament,
contained in a decision of 13 February 2006, to reclassify its
employees — who were recruited as temporary servants before
1 May 2004 after having passed an internal or open competi-
tion published before 1 May 2004 and were subsequently
appointed as officials in the same category but in a lower grade
than that in which they would have been appointed before
1 May 2004 — stemmed from an obligation in the Staff Regula-
tions, the CST infringed the case-law cited in paragraph 37 of
the contested order.

Furthermore, the appellants submit that the question whether
there is an obligation stemming from the Staff Regulations is
not a point of fact in respect of which proof should have been
adduced by the appellants, but a point of law which the CST
should have resolved and that a difference in the classification
of officials whose factual and legal situations are identical or
similar stemming from a position adopted subsequently by an
institution other
to which the appellants belong
constitutes a material new fact which warrants a re-examination
of the appellants' classification in grade.

than that

Thirdly, the appellants submit that the CST failed to have regard
to the concept of excusable error in so far as the note in Admin-
istrative Notice No 59-2005, published by the Commission on
20 July 2005, was liable to mislead the appellants regarding the
advisability of submitting a complaint against the classification
decision within the period laid down in the Staff Regulations.

Lastly, the appellants submit that the CST's reasoning infringes
the provisions of the Rules of Procedure concerning the inad-
missibility of actions.

— rule that

the applicant suffered loss as a result of

that

improper conduct;

— rule that the Community is required to compensate that

loss;

— take formal notice that Mr Perry estimates his loss at

EUR 1 000 000;

— order the Community to pay Mr Perry EUR 1 000 000;

— order the Community to pay all the costs and outlays of the

proceedings;

— rule that it is equitable that the Community pay the costs

and fees of the defence, in the sum of EUR 10 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

seeks compensation for

The applicant
the loss which it
considers it suffered as a result of accusations of misuse of Com-
munity subsidies
in the performance of certain contracts
concluded between the applicant's companies and the Commis-
sion in the context of the European Union humanitarian aid
programmes for Bosnia and the Great Lakes region of Africa.

The pleas and main arguments put forward by the applicant are
identical to those put forward in case T-132/98 Perry Group and
Isibiris v Commission (1).

(1) OJ 1998 C 312, p. 20.

Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Perry v Commission

(Case T-280/08)

(2008/C 260/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Tresplain Investments v
OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-303/08)

(2008/C 260/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (repre-
sented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Applicant: Claude Perry (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Culioli,
lawyer)

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hoo Hing
Holdings Ltd (Romford, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that the Commission acted improperly;

— rule

that

that

improper

conduct

gives

rise

to the

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1; and

non-contractual liability of the Community;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.