Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/55 |

---

Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Meister v OHIM

(Case F-138/06)

(2007/C 82/117)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Herbert Meister (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: Hans-Joachim Zimmermann)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the implied decision of rejection by the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 September 2006 taken under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, annul the implied decision of rejection by the President of OHIM of 18 September 2006 taken under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and the written decision of rejection by the President of OHIM of 20 September 2006 (dated 18 September 2006); |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the further alternative, annul the written decision of the President of OHIM of 20 September 2006 which was based on Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, annul the communication of OHIM of 9 June 2006 entitled ‘definitive Promotion Points 2006’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, annul the implied decision of rejection by the President of OHIM of 27 November 2006; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay the applicant an appropriate amount of up to one year's salary, but not less than EUR 45 000; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official of OHIM in Alicante, Spain, and complains about the reports which the defendant has to submit about him every two years, which, he claims, are substantively incorrect and are flawed and have not been produced on numerous occasions. Accordingly, the applicant seeks annulment of all the defendant's implied decisions taken on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and the amendment of the promotion points granted erroneously by the defendant to him in 2006.

The applicant also claims that, by unlawfully infringing Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in his regard for years, the defendant has intentionally and immorally disregarded his rights as an employee. He thus seeks damage for non-material harm from the defendant on the grounds of physical harassment and continuous infringement of his personal rights.

---

[Top](#document1)