CELEX: C2002/305/60
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-311/02: Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Vitaly Lissotschenko and Joachim Hentze against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs)

C 305/28               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.12.2002
The applicant further takes issue with the supplementary fixing            applications was 18 March 2002. The Commission notified
of interest. The applicant invokes deferment of payment and                that vacancy notice to its staff on 14 March 2002. The
protection of legitimate expectations and raises the objection             deadline for the submission of applications, indicated in that
of misuse of powers. The Commission, it claims, did not make               publication, was 2 April 2002.
it clear during the period required by it for taking a decision
that it would be seeking increased interest for that period.
Instead, the Commission intimated that it would forego                     The applicant submitted his application after the deadline set
enforcement measures during its own decision-making period.                down in the Council’s vacancy notice expired, but before
The applicant regards the Commission’s decision as being at                the expiry of the deadline set down in the Commission’s
variance with this.                                                        publication. The applicant’s application was rejected by the
                                                                           Council as inadmissible.
( 1) The applicant has brought an action against that decision (Case
     T-239/01 SGL Carbon v Commission, OJ 2002 C 3, p. 34).                In support of his action, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                           principle of sound administration. According to the applicant,
                                                                           there cannot be contradictory decisions within a single admin-
                                                                           istrative authority and a single legal person, such as constituted
                                                                           by the European Communities. The applicant claims moreover
                                                                           that a more recent or more specific act, such as the Com-
                                                                           mission’s publication, prevails. In the applicant’s view, the
                                                                           principle of sound administration entails the application of the
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Athanassios                         interpretation which is most plausible for the official.
     Theodorakis against Council of the European Union
                                                                           The applicant further alleges infringement of Article 29(1) of
                         (Case T-310/02)                                   the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(3) of Annex III to the
                                                                           Staff Regulations inasmuch as the same deadline did not apply
                                                                           to all the potential candidates, irrespective of which institution
                         (2002/C 305/59)
                                                                           they belonged to.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Moreover, the result of applying the deadline in the Council’s
                                                                           vacancy notice was that officials of the Commission and the
                                                                           other institutions were discriminated against by comparison
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    with those of the Council inasmuch as officials at the Council
                                                                           had more time. Finally, the applicant alleges misuse of powers.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 September 2002 by Athanassios Theodo-
rakis, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by Spyros
A. Pappas, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of 10 July 2002 of the appointing                Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Vitaly Lissot-
       authority replying to his complaint of 24.05.2002;                  schenko and Joachim Hentze against the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and
                                                                                                        Designs)
—      annul the decision of the appointing authority of the
       Council concerning the appointment of the RELEX
       Director General of the Council and recommence the                                          (Case T-311/02)
       selection procedure as initially requested by the applicant;
                                                                                                   (2002/C 305/60)
—      order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant is an official in the Commission. He submitted               Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) was brought before the
an application for the post of Director General at the Council.            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
That post was published on 25 February 2002 in Vacancy                     10 October 2002 by Vitaly Lissotschenko, of Dortmund
Notice 412/02. The same day the Council sent that vacancy                  (Germany), and Joachim Hentze, of Werl (Germany), represent-
notice to the other institutions. The deadline for submitting              ed by B. Hein, Rechtsanwalt.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 305/29
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Lucio Gussetti
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision adopted on 31 July 2002 by the
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation                                       (Case T-312/02)
      in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs),
      concerning appeal No R 0363/2000-2, in so far as it
      rejects the application for registration of the mark ‘Limo’                                  (2002/C 305/61)
      for goods in Class 9, being ‘Lasers for non-medical
      purposes, in particular diode lasers, lasers for measuring
      technology, lasers for the treatment of materials, lasers                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      for the printing industry, lasers for material testing
      and quality control, lasers for data processing or data
      transmission; optical and/or electronic apparatus and
      instruments, in particular imaging systems, microoptical
      systems, control electronics, optical systems with inte-           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      grated electronics and/or light sources; lenses; optical           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      lenses, supplementary lenses, prisms, corrective lenses;           European Communities on 10 October 2002 by Lucio Gus-
      diffraction apparatus (microscopy)’ and in Class 10, being         setti, represented by Massimo Merola, avvocato.
      ‘Lasers for medical purposes’;
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      annul the decision of the Directorate General Adminis-
                                                                                tration of the Commission, notified by letter ADMIN B.3
                                                                                D(02) 8305 of 15 February 2002 by which, pursuant to
                                                                                Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the Administration,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 with effect from 1 June 2001, retroactively deducted
                                                                                EUR 273.48 from his monthly salary;
The Community trade            the word mark ‘LIMO’ — appli-             —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
mark applied for:              cation No 1290022
Goods or services:             Goods in Classes 9, 10 and 11
                               (including inter alia lasers for non-     Pleas in law and main arguments
                               medical purposes, lasers for medi-
                               cal purposes and lighting appar-
                               atus and installations)
                                                                         The applicant in the present case is an official working for the
                                                                         defendant. Pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations,
Decision         contested     refusal of registration by the            EUR 68,48, corresponding to family allowances paid by the
before the Board of            examiner                                  Belgian ‘allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés’ scheme
Appeal:                                                                  to his late wife in respect of their dependant child, was being
                                                                         deducted from his monthly Community salary.
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the application in
Appeal:                        respect of goods in Classes 9 and
                               10 and leave for publication of           The present case is based on a change, in accordance with the
                               the application in respect of goods       Belgian Law of 12 August 2000, in the practice of the Belgian
                               in Class 11                               authorities consisting in no longer deducting the Communities
                                                                         orphan’s pension.
Grounds of claim:              no absolute bars to registration
                               under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).             In his complaint, the applicant raised the difficulty of consist-
                                                                         ency between the Communities and Belgian orphan’s pensions,
                                                                         pointing out that the EUR 68,48 being withheld was not
                                                                         attributable to family allowances since his late wife was no
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the         longer in receipt of them. The defendant was wrong to
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          consider the sums paid by the Belgian authorities by way of
                                                                         orphan’s allowances and those paid by the Communities’
                                                                         administration to be of like nature within the meaning of
                                                                         Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. Accordingly, the
                                                                         deduction in question is per se an error.