Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 261/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26.10.2002

Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations for officials of the
European Communities — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 14 August 2002, in which he:

1. _Dismisses the application for interim measures;_

2. _Orders that costs are reserved._

**ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST**

**INSTANCE**

**of 16 July 2002**

**in Case T-207/02 R: Nicoletta Falcone v Commission of**
**the European Communities**

_**(Procedure for interim relief — Competition procedure —**_
_**Interim measures — Urgency — None)**_

(2002/C 261/30)

_(Language of the case: Italian)_

In Case T-207/02 R: Nicoletta Falcone, residing in Florence
(Italy), represented by M. Condinanzi, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
A. Dal Ferro) — application for an interim measure requiring
the Commission to invite the applicant to complete her
application for admission to the second set of tests in general
competition COM/A/10/01, in the field of law, fixed for
19 July 2002, from which she was excluded by decision of the
jury of 2 May 2002 informing her that she had not been
admitted to the written tests in the said competition — the
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
16 July 2002, in which he:

1. _Dismisses the application;_

2. _Orders that costs are reserved._

**Action brought on 29 June 2002 by José Lloris Maeso**
**against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-165/02)**

(2002/C 261/31)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communitieson 29 June 2002 by José Lloris Maeso,
residing in Valencia (Spain), represented by Julián Bosch
Abarca, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the selection board for competition
COM/A/10/01 (Law) of 2 May 2002, and that he be
admitted to the next stage of that competition.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in the present case is challenging the decision of
the selection board for COM/A/10/01 (Law), notified by letter
dated 2 May 2002, awarding him in respect of one of the
selection tests in that competition, specifically test (a), marks
below the minimum required to be admitted to the remainder
of the tests for that competition.

In support of his claim, the applicant alleges error in the
marking of the abovementioned test (a).

**Action brought on 14 August 2002 by Sunrider Corpor-**
**ation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market**

**(Case T-242/02)**

(2002/C 261/32)

_(Language of the case: Greek)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 August 2002 by Sunrider
Corporation, whose registered office is in Torrance, California
(USA), represented by Nikolaos Dontasand Maria Bra,Lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

26.10.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 261/17

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
allow the present action;

—
annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal
of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 May 2002; and

—
order the Office in any event to pay, first, the applicant’s
costs both before the Board of Appeal and before the
Court of First Instance, together with the fees of the
lawyers instructed by it, and second, the translation
costs incurred by the applicant in the procedures for
examination of its application and consideration of its
appeal before the Board of Appeal.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark: the word mark ‘TOP’ — Application 604 975

Goods or services con- herbal food capsule or powder;
cerned: herbal nutritional supplement.
(Classes 5 and 29)

Decision of the exam- refusalof theapplication forregisiner: tration

Decision of the Board of dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Grounds put forward: 1. infringement of the _audi_
_alteram partem_ rule and of the
rights of the defence

2. impermissibly long procedure before the Office’s
Boards of Appeal from the
lodging of the appeal to notification of the decision to the
applicant

3. non-notification of matters
upon which the contested
decision was based

4. insufficient and unclear
grounds of the contested
decision

5. suitability for registration of
the mark

6. distinctive character of the
mark

**Action brought on 19 August 2002 by Antonia de Jong**
**against Europol**

**(Case T-245/02)**

(2002/C 261/33)

_(Language of the case: Dutch)_

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 19 August
2002 by Antonia de Jong, residing in The Hague (Netherlands),
represented by Pauline de Casparis and Maria Franciscus
Baltussen.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Set aside Europol’s rejection of the applicant’s complaint
brought against the Decision of 23 November 2001 and
at the same time annul the contested Decision of
23 November 2001;

2. Principally, order Europol to grant the applicant two
additional salary increments with effect from 1 July 2001,
and, in the alternative, order Europol to grant the
applicant one additional salary increment with effect
from 1 July 2001;

3. Order Europol to pay to the applicant the amounts due
under (2) within 48 hours of pronouncement of the
judgment to be delivered in this case, plus such statutory
interest as is due on those amounts in accordance with
Netherlands law;

4. Order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
of pronouncement of the judgment to be delivered in this
case, the sum of EUR 1 000 as compensation for the
non-material damage which she has suffered;

5. Order Europol to pay the costs incurred by the applicant
in the present proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant works for Europol. In the contested decision,
the defendant refused to grant a salary increase to the applicant
on the basis of her report.

The applicant contends that this decision is contrary to
Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the
applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the
necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance
with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director
exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decisionmaking procedure does not satisfy the requirements of due
care and impartiality. Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement
of the principles of equal treatment andprotection of legitimate
expectations.