Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/57 |

---

Appeal brought on 24 July 2007 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case F-97/06, López Teruel v OHIM

(Case T-284/07 P)

(2007/C 211/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (represented by I. de Medrano Caballero and E. Maurage, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Adelaida López Teruel (Guadalajara, Spain)

Form of order sought by the appellant

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 May 2007 delivered in Case F-97/06; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | make an appropriate order as to costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment of 22 May 2007, the annulment of which is sought in this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the decision of OHIM of 6 October 2005 refusing the application brought by Ms López Teruel for an Invalidity Committee to be convened.

In support of the appeal for annulment of that judgment, OHIM raises three pleas.

The first plea alleges infringement of statutory provisions relating to the convening of an Invalidity Committee, in that the CST equated the conditions for entitlement to an invalidity pension with the conditions for the convening of an Invalidity Committee. The appellant also disputes that there is a mandatory duty on the part of the Appointing Authority as regards convening such a committee and submits that the judgment of the CST is therefore vitiated by an error of interpretation.

The second plea alleges infringement of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and an error of law as regards the assessment of the contested decision, in that the CST considered the decision of 6 October 2005 to be the only act adversely affecting an official and treated as a confirmatory act the decision of OHIM responding to the complaint made against that decision.

Thirdly, OHIM submits that the CST clearly distorted the facts and the evidence in holding that the Office based its decision on the results of the examination of the applicant by an independent doctor on 18 October 2005.

---

[Top](#document1)