Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 233/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.9.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Commission of 25 February
2002 imposing on the applicant the penalty provided for
in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations, namely
removal from post without loss of entitlement to pension;

—
annul any connected and/or subsequent decision;

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant
EUR 12 500 by way of compensation for non-material
damage;

—
order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant was found guilty of a number of criminal
offences by the Cour d’Appel, Brussels. However, that court
ordered a suspended sentence of 5 years subject to a number
of conditions in order to avoid affecting the applicant’s civic

status.

Subsequently, in view of the seriousness of the offences, the
Commission removed the applicant from his post without loss
of entitlement to pension.

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges lack of a
statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the defence.
Moreover, the applicant claims that the disciplinary measure is
disproportionate to the seriousness of the effect of his conduct
on the institution and his work. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

**Action brought on 28 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio**
**against the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-**
**ties**

**(Case T-201/02)**

(2002/C 233/48)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 28 June 2002 by Pierre
Tomarchio, residing in Nancy (France), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Commission’s decision of 27 July 2001 refusing
to classify the applicant in the higher grade of his career
bracket in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff
Regulations;

—
annul, in so far as is necessary, the express decision
adopted by the Court of Auditors on 26 February 2002
in which it rejected the complaint submitted by the
applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of those regulations;

—
order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs of these
proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in this case, a former official of the Commission
and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
contests the refusal of the appointing authority to classify him
in the higher grade of his career bracket at the time of his
recruitment to grade B5 step 3, following his inclusion on the
list of suitable candidates drawn up on the basis of competition
No COM/B/340.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges that:

— substantive errors and manifest errors of assessment were
made in respect of his professional qualifications, the
length and relevance of his professional experience with
regard to the post to be filled, and the level of his
remuneration in his successive positions;

—
the obligation to state reasons was not observed.

**Action brought on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider Corpor-**
**ation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market**

**(Case T-203/02)**

(2002/C 233/49)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider
Corporation, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,
Bolte & Partner in Munich, Germany.

28.9.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 233/27

A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Juan Espadafor Caba, Granada, Spain.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
defendant dated 8 April 2002 in case R 1046/2000-1;

—
order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:

The Community trade The word mark ‘VITAFRUIT’ for
mark concerned: certain goods in classes 5, 29 and
32 (a.o. beers, mineral and aerated
waters and other non-alcoholic
drinks, fruit and vegetable drinks,
fruitjuices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages;
herbal and vitamin beverages)

Proprietor of the right to Juan Espadafor Caba
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of opposition in the opposition
proceedings:

Trade mark or sign The national mark ‘VITAFRUT’
asserted by way of oppo- for goods in classes 30 and 32
sition in the opposition (a.o. non-alcoholic and non-theraproceedings: peutic carbonic drinks, fruit and
vegetable juices without fermentation, lemonades, orangeades,
cold beverages, soda water)

Decision of the Oppo- Upheld opposition insofar as it
sition Division: was based on the goods ‘fruit and
vegetable juices without fermentation, lemonades, orangeades’
and insofar as it was directed
against the goods ‘mineral and
aerated waters and other nonalcoholic drinks, fruit and vegetable drinks, fruit juices; syrups
and other preparations for making beverages; herbal and vitamin
beverages’.

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal by the
Appeal: applicant.

Grounds of claim: — Infringement of Article 43 of
Regulation 40/94( [1] ), since
there was no satisfactory
proof of the genuine use of
the opposing trademark.

—
Infringement of Article 8 (1)
b of Regulation 40/94 since
there is no danger of confusion with regard to certain
goods.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 10 July 2002 by Commune de Cham-**
**pagne and Others against Council of the European Union**
**and Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-212/02)**

(2002/C 233/50)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities
on 10 July 2002 by Commune de Champagne and Others,
Canton de Vaud (Switzerland), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul Article 1 of Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom
Decision of the Council and of the Commission as
regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological
Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven
Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in so far as
the Council and the Commission thereby approved
Article 5(8) of Title II of Annex 7 to the Agreement
between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricultural Products (‘the Champagne Clause’);