CELEX: C2003/055/88
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-395/02: Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega Rodríguez against the Commission of the European Communities

8.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant also alleges failure to have regard for the welfare
                                                                          of officials and misuse of powers. The Commission has created
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                a situation allowing it to avoid all contact with Dr Cognigni
                                                                          who, for his part, can only pursue the applicant.
      Communities adopted on 7 September 2002 concerning
      complaint R/272/02 lodged by the applicant on 21 May
      2002;
—     order payment in their entirety of: the fees charged by Dr
      Cognigni for his work in the context of the Medical and
      Invalidity Committees concerning the applicant, together
      with reimbursement of the amounts withheld from the
      applicant’s pension; default interest on all those amounts;         Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega
      and the costs of the proceedings, including lawyers’,               Rodríguez against the Commission of the European
      translation and process servers’ fees;                                                         Communities
—     compensate the applicant for the non-material damage                                         (Case T-395/02)
      suffered;
                                                                                                    (2003/C 55/88)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant, a former official of the Commission who                    European Communities on 27 December 2002 by Eva Vega
worked in the Berlaymont building, was retired on the                     Rodríguez, residing in Brussels, represented by J.R. Iturriagago-
ground of invalidity in 1991. The applicant’s condition was               itia and K. Delvolvé, avocats
subsequently acknowledged to be an occupational disease. The
applicant appointed Dr Cognigni to sit on the Medical and
Invalidity Committees.                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Primarily
The Commission failed to pay Dr Cognigni’s fees. The applicant
then brought Case T-75/98 seeking payment of the fees. That               —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
case was removed from the register after an out-of-court                        Communities adopted on 27 September 2002 in respect
settlement fixing an amount to be paid to the applicant by                      of Claim No R/297/02 brought by the applicant on
way of additional payment in respect of the work done by the                    5 June 2002;
Invalidity Committee and of the costs incurred in bringing
proceedings before national courts. Contrary to expectation,              —     order the respondent to pay the costs;
Dr Cognigni insisted that the whole of his fees be reimbursed.
He therefore again brought proceedings against the applicant
before the Italian courts. Following a judgment delivered by an           In the alternative
Italian court, Dr Cognigni sought enforcement of the judgment
by way of attachment of the applicant’s pension. The applicant            —     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2002;
is challenging the decision adopted by the Commission
authorising the attachment.                                               —     order the payment of compensation for the damages
                                                                                sustained in the sum of EUR 72 292,36 together with
                                                                                interest until the date of payment at the legal rate;
The applicant would point out that in accordance with the
rules relating to fees incurred in the context of medical and             —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
invalidity committees, the costs are entirely covered by the
Commission.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
principle of proportionality and the spurious and vexatious
nature of the attachment ordered by the Commission. Accord-               By the present action, the applicant objects to her exclusion,
ing to the applicant, the Commission ought to have taken                  at the pre-selection stage, from the tests for open competition
account of the fact that the judgment was still open to appeal.           COM/A/10/01.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/36               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           8.3.2003
After finding an error in the wording of multiple-choice                 Pleas in law:                  —     Infringement               of
question number 35 of test (b), the jury decided to cancel that                                               Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
question.                                                                                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                                        —     Infringement of Article 7(3)
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges a manifest error                                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/
of assessment in the marking of questions number 21 in test                                                   94.
(a) and number 9 in test (c). She also alleges misuse of powers
in the present case.
                                                                         (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                              Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 27 December 2002 by August Storck
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                           Action brought on 27 December 2002 by August Storck
                                                                         KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                        (Case T-396/02)                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (2003/C 55/89)                                                            (Case T-402/02)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    (2003/C 55/90)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
27 December 2002 by August Storck KG, Berlin, represented                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
by H. Wrage-Molkenthin, T. Reher and A. Heise, Rechtsanwäl-              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
te, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         27 December 2002 by August Storck KG, Berlin, represented
                                                                         by H. Wrage-Molkenthin, T. Reher and A. Heise, Rechtsanwäl-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              te, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      14 October 2002 in Case R 187/2001-4;
                                                                         —     set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                       the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                                                                               18 October 2002 in Case R 256/2001-2;
                                                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade mark for which          A three-dimensional mark in the
Community registration        form of a caramel sweet of a               Pleas in law and main arguments
sought:                       light brown colour — Application
                              No 784314
                                                                         Trade mark for which           The pictorial mark consisting of
Goods or services:            Goods of Class 30 (confectionery)          Community registration         the illustration of a wrapped sweet
                                                                         sought:                        — Application No 784454
Decision       challenged     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                   Goods or services:             Goods of Class 30 (sweets)
Appeal:
                                                                         Decision        challenged     Refusal of registration by the
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the complaint                 before the Board of            examiner
Appeal:                                                                  Appeal: