CELEX: C2000/176/52
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-108/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-Reino against the Commission of the European Communities

24.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision refusing payment to the applicant of the daily                  Trade Mark concerned:         ‘STREAMSERVE’ — Application
subsistence allowance and of the second part of an installation                                        No 198398.
allowance for his daughter upon his being transferred to
Brussels.                                                                Product or service:           Computer software and hardware
                                                                                                       (class numbers 9 and 16 of the
The applicant states in that regard that, having previously been                                       Nice classification).
transferred to Luxembourg, he was then required, in the
context of a new posting, once again to transfer his residence           Contested        Decision     Refusal of registration by the
and place of work to Brussels.                                           before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                         Appeal:
In support of his claims, he argues that he is in his view
entitled to request that he be paid the daily subsistence                Pleas in law relied on:       — Infringement of Article 7
allowance and an installation allowance, to which any unmar-                                               (1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No
ried official with an officially recognised dependent child is                                             40/94.
automatically entitled. As regards the installation allowance,
this is intended to compensate for the expenses and difficulties                                       — Breach of the principle of non-
occasioned by the need to move house and settle in to a new                                                discrimination.
residence.
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve North
America Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                         Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
                         (Case T-106/00)                                 Reino against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                        ties
                         (2000/C 176/51)
                                                                                                 (Case T-108/00)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 176/52)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve
North America Inc., represented by Magnus Nedstrand and Ulf                                 (Language of the case: French)
Willquist of the Swedish Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the contested decision in so far as the Court finds              European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
    that the trade mark STREAMSERVE does not satisfy the                 Reino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Louis Dupont,
    conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council           of the Brussels Bar, and Marc-Albert Lucas and Michel
    Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                  Franchimont, of the Liège Bar.
    Community Trade Mark and remit the case back to the
    Examiner;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as
    it constitutes a sufficiently apparent breach of the principle
    of non-discrimination and remit the case back to the                 — annul or declare illegal and/or defective the decisions,
    Examiner;                                                                failures to adopt measures required under the Staff Regu-
                                                                             lations or straightforward measures forming the subject-
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.                          matter of the proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-                 Action brought on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
    sation for the non-material damage suffered by him and             NV against the Commission of the European Communities
    for the harm done to his career, in a sum equivalent to that
    provided for by Article 50 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                                               (Case T-110/00)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                               (2000/C 176/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
Between 1992 and 1996 the applicant was the Director of the
European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), in which
certain serious malpractices were discovered following an              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
investigation carried out by UCLAF in 1998. On 14 July                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999 the Commission decided not to pursue the disciplinary             European Communities on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
proceedings brought against the applicant, and did not impose          NV, represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar,
any disciplinary measure on him. That decision was sub-                and M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with
sequently criticised in the press and was also, according to the       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
applicant, the subject of criticism by certain officials and           M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
members of the Community institutions. In bringing the
present action, the applicant complains that the Commission
has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide assistance, as          The applicant claims that the Court should:
required by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, since it has
unlawfully refrained from taking the appropriate measures to           (1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods admissible;
defend the applicant against unjustified accusations.
                                                                       (2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000
The applicant is seeking, in particular:                                   introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
                                                                           overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February                    with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;
    2000, in which it expressed an opinion on the applicant’s
    activities as former Director of ECHO for the purposes of          (3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
    proceedings brought by the applicant before the German                 by Free Trade Foods as a result of the safeguard measure
    courts against a German weekly periodical;                             and that the parties should seek to reach agreement on the
                                                                           extent of the damage suffered by Free Trade Foods, and
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the Commission’s              order that, if no such agreement is reached within a time-
    failure to react following a press conference on 19 Nov-               limit to be specified by the Court, the proceedings are to
    ember 1999, in the course of which the Director of OLAF                continue with a view to determining the quantum of the
    called in question the decision adopted by the Commission              damage, and order the Community in any event to pay the
    in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;                 damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified,
                                                                           alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
                                                                           deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            from the date of the application until payment in full;
    reaction by the Commission to an article published in a
    German daily newspaper, in which OLAF called in question
    the said decision of the Commission;                               (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 February
    2000 refusing to authorise the applicant to speak at a
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
    meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on
    Budgetary Control;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 109 of the Council Decision of
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries
    appropriate reaction on the part of the Commission to                  and territories with the European Economic Com-
    certain draft reports prepared, and discussions held, within           munity (2);
    the Committee on Budgetary Control and at the time of
    the debates which took place in the plenary sessions of the        — infringement of the favourable treatment given in the
    Parliament on 11 and 13 April 2000.                                    Treaty (Articles 3(1)(s) and 183(1) EC) to OCT goods;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                           guards concluded within the framework of the WTO;