Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

12.10.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 247/23

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission not to include the
applicant’s name in the list of officials most deserving of
promotion to Grade B 2 and the decision not to promote
him to that grade in the 2001 promotions procedure;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in the present case, an official at Grade B 3
working for the defendant, challenges the appointing authority’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 2 in the context of
the 2001 promotions procedure.

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the
principles of equal treatment, that officials should have
reasonable career prospects and of the principle of sound
administration.

**Action brought on 12 August 2002 by J against Com-**
**mission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-243/02)**

(2002/C 247/37)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 August 2002 by J, represented
by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 February 2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of
29 December 2001;

—
annul the decision of 23 July 2001 asking DG ADMIN ‘to
initiate proceedings for a finding of repeated professional
shortcomings as soon as possible’;

—
annul the decision of 19 September 2001 concerning the
initiation of proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff
Regulations;

—
award damages to the applicant for the non-material
damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 25 000;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By decision of 23 July 2001, the Commission department to
which the applicant is posted requested that proceedings be
initiated to recommence other proceedings allegedly initiated
previously for a finding of professional incompetence of the
applicant. According to the applicant, the Director General of
DG ADMIN interpreted that request as a request to ‘initiate
proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations’.

The applicant claims that the documents on which his
department based its request show the imprecise way in which
it is handling the file. The file in no way demonstrates that the
proceedings referred to were initiated in 1994 and 1996.

In support of his application, the applicant alleges:

—
lack of precision as regards the reopening of former
proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations or
the opening of new proceedings, without setting out the
applicant’s conduct complained of;

—
infringement of the rule audi alteram partem;

—
infringement of the principle non bis in idem;

—
breach of the principle that legitimate expectations are to
be protected;

—
breach of the principle of proportionality;

—
error of assessment of the facts and misuse of powers;

—
lack of statement of reasons;

—
infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.

**Action brought on 9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC**
**(formerly known as G.D. Searle & Co) against the Office**
**for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks**
**and Designs)**

**(Case T-244/02)**

(2002/C 247/38)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC (formerly known as
G.D. Searle & Co), represented by Graham Farrington, Farrington & Co Solicitors, Reading (UK).

C 247/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12.10.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trademarks and Designs) of 19 June 2002;

—
order the Defendant to remit the application to its
Examination Division for re-examination of Community
Trademark number 1299809.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The trade mark con- The figurative mark, presented as
cerned: design of capsule with yellow
bands — application
No 1299809

Goods or service con- Goods in Class 5(pharmaceuticals
cerned: inthe nature of anti-inflammatory
analgesics)

Decision contested Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of examiner
Appeal:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Grounds of claim: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ( [1] )

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer de**
**Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties**

**(Case T-246/02)**

(2002/C 247/39)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer
de Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the implied rejection by the appointing authority
of the request of 28 August 2001 for damages on account
of the undue delay by the defendant in drawing up the
applicant’s staff reports for the reference periods 19951997 and 1997-1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul
the implied rejection of the complaint of 14 January
2002;

—
award EUR 25 000 in damages by of compensation for
non-material damage, that amount being fixed _ex aequo et_
_bono_ ;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By his application, the applicant, an official of the Office de
Contrôle de la Sécurité at Euratom, seeks an award of damages
for the alleged delay in drawing up his staff report relating to
the reference periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999.

The applicant claims that, by refusing to finalise those reports
which are an essential assessment where the applicant’s career
is at stake, the defendant infringed Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations, the provisions of the Guide de Notation and the
principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the defendant is in
breach of its duty to have regard to the welfare of its officials
and infringed the principle of sound administration.

**Action brought on 9 August 2002 by The Christian**
**Science Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ,**
**Scientist against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-247/02)**

(2002/C 247/40)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 August 2002 by The Christian Science Board of Directors of
The First Church of Christ, Scientist, represented by Nicholas
Green QC, Mark Engelman, barristers and by Geoffrey Smith
and James Mitchiner, solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse,
London (UK).