Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 191/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.8.2002

for the conclusions concerning the impact of the scheme on In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
intra-Community trade. of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff
Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of
employment of the applicant during the period in which he
( [1] ) OJ 1997 C 283, p. 2. was on secondment in the interests of the service. The
applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary
decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be
protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular
nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.
**Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras**
**against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-180/02)**

(2002/C 191/51) **Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l.**
**against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal**
**Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)**
_(Language of the case: French)_

**(Case T-186/02)**

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- (2002/C 191/52)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by Georgios _(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with_
Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by _Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the_
Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers, _application was drafted: Italian)_
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should: An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
— the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff
14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l., whose registered office is
Administration and Management Directorate Luxemin Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by Federico
bourg and Ispra of DG Admin:
Tedeschini, Maurizio Pinnaro` and Patrik Santer.

—
fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place
of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing The applicant claims that the Court should:
his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual
travel expenses and applying to his salary the annul the decision of 19 March 2002 of the Third Board of
weighting applicable to Greece; Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
in the appeal against the decision of 28 February 2001 of the
— to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that Fifth Unit of the Opposition Division and consequently
decision, any amount in general; uphold the registration application submitted by the applicant
undertaking.

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ Applicant for the Com- The applicant
munity trade mark:

The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg, The Community trade Figurative mark ‘DIESELIT’ —
was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek mark concerned: Registration application
Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospec- No 880211, registration sought
tive effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment in respect of goods and services
as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Further- within Classes 7, 11 and 21 (flat
more, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary, irons, steam irons and ironing
pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general. boards)

10.8.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 191/31

Proprietor of the right to Diesel SpA ber 1986, and accordingly declare that Ente per le Ville
the trade mark or sign Vesuviane is entitled to final payment of the assistance
asserted by way of oppo- received until now and to have the remainder of the
sition in the opposition funding paid to it as requested on 13 December 2000
proceedings: and still outstanding;

Trade mark or sign Italian trade mark ‘DIESEL’ regis- —
asserted by way of oppo- tered under No 686092 and Com- order the European Commission to pay the costs.
sition in the opposition munity trade mark ‘DIESEL’, regisproceedings: tered under No 000743401 in
respect of goods within Classes 7,
11 and 21 and 11 and 21 respectively
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Decision of the Oppo- Registration application dismissed
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal dismissed The applicant in the present case, a public-law consortium
whose object is to protect and improve the complex of sites
Appeal:
consisting of the Ville Vesuviane (the towns around Vesuvius)
dating from the 18th Century, is contesting the decision of the
Grounds of claim: Total lack of similarity between
Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the European
the two trade marks and no likeliCommission D (2002) 810111, 102504, of 13 March 2002
hood whatever of confusion or
bringing to an end the financial assistance paid to the applicant
association. Moreover, the party
itself, pursuant to Commission Decision No C (86) 2029/120
which brought opposition proof 18 December 1986 of the European Regional Development
ceedings has not adduced eviFund (intervention No 86/05/04/054).
dence of serious use of the mark
in respect of goods within the
classes in concerned.

In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that:

—
the contested measures were adopted on the mistaken
assumption that the delays in the project being financed
were not as a result of the relevant work being subject to
a suspension for judicial reasons, within the meaning of
Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of
**Action brought on 18 June 2002 by Ente per le Ville** 20 July 1993( [1] ). On the contrary, while the project was
**Vesuviane against Commission of the European Com-** under way, the applicant was obliged to initiate several
**munities** court proceedings seeking the removal of the occupants
of numerous areas and buildings which were to be
restored as part of the improvements in the Vesuvius
**(Case T-189/02)**
towns of Favorita and Ruggiero. The applicant further
claims that the defendant failed to make inquiries in that
regard.
(2002/C 191/53)

—
its rights of defence were infringed in that, contrary to
_(Language of the case: Italian)_
Article 4 of Commission Decision No C (86) 2020 of
18 December 1986, the applicant, who was in receipt of
assistance, did not have the opportunity to submit its
own observations to the Commission before the adoption
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- by the latter of the contested decision.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 2002 by Ente per le Ville
Vesuviane, represented by Enrico Soprano, avvocato.
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/898 as regards the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Regional Development Fund (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 34).

—
annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Regional
Policy of the European Commission No D (2002) 810111
of 13 March 2002 and No (86) 2029/120 of 18 Decem