CELEX: C2001/289/65
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-160/01: Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Léon Rappe against the Commission of the European Communities

13.10.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/27
The applicant contends that the decision means that in future            kamp, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Eric
almost all sales packaging in Germany will bear its mark, with           Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
the result that, together with its disposal partners, the applicant
will bear the costs of the disposal of packaging for which it
will receive no licence fee. Indiscriminate designation of almost        The applicant claims that the Court should:
all packaging in Germany with the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’
would, it argues, destroy both the indication-of-origin function
and the appeal function of that mark and thereby jeopardise              —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 Sep-
the efficacy of the applicant’s system. At almost the same time                tember 2000 filling at Grade A 1 the post of Deputy
it would lead to a total dilution of the mark, and the recognised              Director General responsible for coordination of Director-
signal effect of the mark would be destroyed in a very short                   ates C, D and E of the Directorate-General for Agriculture
time. The applicant submits that the total dilution of the mark                (COM/094/00);
would imperil the authorisation of its system and claims
protection against revocation of that authorisation.                     —     set aside the appointment of another person to the post
                                                                               of Deputy Director General responsible for coordination
                                                                               of Directorates C, D and E of the Directorate-General for
                                                                               Agriculture (COM/094/00), which involved in particular
The applicant argues that there is no infringement of Article 82               the rejection of the application which the applicant had
inasmuch as the conditions for the legal exemption under                       submitted for the vacant post;
Article 86(2) EC are satisfied. The applicant submits that it is
entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic
interest and that accordingly the rules governing competition,           —     annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
including those of Article 82 EC, apply to it only in so far as                plaint;
their application does not obstruct the performance, under
commercially acceptable conditions, of the particular tasks              —     in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs,
assigned to it. By destroying, in particular, the signal effect of             together with the expenses and fees of counsel consulted
the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’, the decision has the effect of                     by the applicant for the purpose of bringing the present
endangering in such a way the functional efficacy of the                       action.
applicant’s system.
The applicant concludes by arguing that there has been a                 Pleas in law and main arguments
breach of Article 3 of Regulation No 17, contending inter alia
that an obligation such as that laid down in Articles 3 and 4
of the contested decision to grant a temporally unlimited                The applicant claims that the Commission took account of the
compulsory licence to use the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ without             nationality of applicants in making the appointment to the
payment of a licence fee is disproportionate and at variance             post of Deputy Director General, thereby infringing Articles 7,
with the case-law of the Court of Justice.                               25, 27, 29 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                         Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Léon Rappe against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Alexandre Tilgenkamp
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                 (Case T-160/01)
                         (Case T-158/01)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 289/65)
                         (2001/C 289/64)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 17 July 2001 by Léon Rappe,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                residing in Orp-Jauche, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Louis and Véronique Peere, Lawyers, with an address for
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Alexandre Tilgen-                service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/28              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision approving the applicant’s staff report
      for the period 1995-1997;                                          In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of
                                                                         essential procedural requirements, breach of the principle of
                                                                         equal treatment and breach of the rules governing the work of
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              the jury. The applicant argues that neither the composition of
                                                                         the jury nor the conduct of the oral tests for competition
                                                                         COM/TB/99 complied with procedural requirements as defined
                                                                         in case-law. He also maintains that the reasons given for the
                                                                         contested decision do not meet the requisite legal standard.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant pleads:
—     infringement of Article 6 of the general implementing
      provisions relating to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Hans Mc Auley against
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-                                Council of the European Union
      discrimination and infringement of the rights of the
      defence;
                                                                                                  (Case T-165/01)
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;
                                                                                                  (2001/C 289/67)
—     manifest error of assessment and incoherence.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 17 July 2001 by Hans Mc Auley, residing in Wezembeek-
                                                                         Oppem (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis et Véronique
                                                                         Peere, lawyers.
Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Liam O’Bradaigh
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case T-161/01)
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 September
                                                                               2000 on the drawing up the final staff report for the
                        (2001/C 289/66)                                        period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Liam O’Bradaigh,
residing in Mechelen, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis            The applicant takes the view that the final staff report was
and Véronique Peere, Lawyers, with an address for service in             drawn up in breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
Luxembourg.                                                              reasons and of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as it:
                                                                         —     awards standardised, harmonised marks;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     contains serious accusations which are neither substan-
—     annul the decision of the jury in competition COM-                       tiated, objective nor specific;
      T/OB/99 to award him in the oral tests a mark lower than
      the pass mark and to exclude him from the reserve list;            —     refers to conduct which has not been proven.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.