Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 202/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 24.8.2002

— convert the period between 8 and 31 July 2000 into sick Decision of the Exam- refusal of the application
leave; iner:

—
order the defendant to pay the costs. Decision of the Board of rejection of the appeal
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Violation of article 7(1) (b) of
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
Regulation 40/94 ( [1] ). The applicant claims the mark is distinctive.
When the applicant submitted a medical certificate attesting
that she was unable to work for one month, she pointed out
to the Commission that she wished to use that certificate to ( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
justify one week’s sick leave and asked that the remainder be Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
regarded as annual leave. The applicant subsequently asked
that the whole of the period be regarded as annual leave and
not set against her annual leave allowance.

In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, erroneous assessment of the facts, misuse of powers, failure to provide reasons **Action brought on 24 June 2002 by Michel Van Beek**
and breach of the rights of the defence as well as breach of the **against Commission of the European Communities**
principles of sound administration and of the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials.
**(Case T-199/02)**

(2002/C 202/60)

_(Language of the case: French)_

**Action brought on 21 June 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market** An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
**(Case T-192/02)** European Communities on 24 June 2002 by Michel Van Beek,
residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
(2002/C 202/59) Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

_(Language of the case: English)_
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal him to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions procedure;
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

—
European Communities on 21 June 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC, order the defendant to pay the costs.
represented by Graham Farrington, Solicitor,

The applicant claims that the Court should:
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

— annul the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of
Appeal of 10 April 2002; The applicant in the present action, an official in Grade A 5,
— challenges the appointing authority’s refusal to promote him
order the defendant to remit the application to its
to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions procedure.
Examination Division for re-examination of Community
Trade Mark number 1299833.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:

—
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ breach of the duty to state reasons;

—
infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and
The Community trade The figurative mark with trade breach of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle
mark concerned: mark application number that officials should have reasonable career prospects
1299833. and of the principles of good management and sound
administration.
Goods and services: Certain goods classified in class 5:
pharmaceuticals in the nature of
anti-inflammatory analgesics.