CELEX: C2001/303/36
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-193/01: Action brought on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre Allo against the Commission of the European Communities

C 303/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.10.2001
—     bioclimatic      architecture     (Solaire     Bioclimatique       European Communities on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre
      DIS/0161/95-BE contract);                                          Allo, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Biomasse combustion (Biomasse SME/1539/97-BE con-
      tract);
—     wind energy technology (Windenergy SME-0792-96/BE
      contract);                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     energy saving in respect of road transport (Transport
      DIS/1178/97-BE contract); and                                      —     annul the Commission decision of 26 October 2000 in
                                                                               that it deprived the applicant of a middle-management
—     photovoltaic        solar     technology       (Photovoltaic             post and reassigned him to the post of Adviser ad
      SME/1883/198-EU contract).                                               personam in the RELEX G1 ‘Horizontal matters’ unit;
Furthermore, in the context of the Altener II Programme for              —     annul the Commission decision of 31 January 2001 and
the dissemination of information on renewable energy, the                      any similar decision refusing to transfer the applicant to
Commission entrusted to the applicant the task of creating                     another service or another DG in accordance with
an Agores Internet site containing information about, and                      Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
promoting the use of renewable forms of energy, and a ‘link’
to all sites providing information concerning renewable forms
of energy.                                                               —     in so far as necessary, annul the Commission decision of
                                                                               3 May 2001, expressly rejecting the complaint submitted
The present application is founded on:                                         by the applicant on 23 January 2001, and the Com-
                                                                               mission decision of 19 June 2001, expressly rejecting the
—     the suspension of the final payments under the Biomasse                  complaint submitted by the applicant on 30 April 2001;
      and Windenergy contracts, following an audit carried out
      by the Commission;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay a sum of 25 000 Euros as
—     the unilateral termination of the Photovoltic contract,                  compensation for the damage suffered;
      after two years and five months’ performance of the
      contract and the demand for reimbursement of the
      advance of 36 000 Euros;                                           —     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.
—     the termination of the Transport contract and the demand
      for reimbursement of the advance of 36 000 Euros;
—     the suspension of payment of the balance of 68 070 Euros
      allegedly owed in respect of the Agores contract.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
Commission’s decisions giving rise to the present action have
no legislative, legal or contractual basis.
                                                                         In the course of reorganizing the Commission’s directorates-
                                                                         general, the unit of which the applicant was, until then, head
                                                                         of unit was abolished, and the applicant was reassigned as
                                                                         Adviser ad personam in another unit. That reassignment,
                                                                         resulted inter alia in putting the applicant in a situation where
                                                                         he was subordinate to an official in a lower grade than his.
Action brought on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre Allo
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant submits that the Commission should have
                         (Case T-193/01)
                                                                         examined the comparative merits of each of the three heads of
                                                                         unit affected by the reorganisation. The Commission’s decision
                         (2001/C 303/36)                                 concerning the reassignment of the applicant did not contain
                                                                         any explanation of the reasons behind the Commission’s
                   (Language of the case: French)                        choice to bring to an end his duties as head of unit. The
                                                                         Commission therefore infringed Article 25(2) of the Staff
                                                                         Regulations. The applicant also submits that, in breach of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, the decision clearly failed to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               have regard to the needs of the service.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.10.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 303/23
In support of his action for annulment, the applicant also               Grounds of claim:            Incorrect       interpretation   of
alleges infringement of the guidelines adopted by the Com-                                            article 7 (1) (b) of the Council
mission on 18 September 1999, breach of the principle of                                              Regulation No 40/94 — The mark
equal treatment and psychological harassment in the work                                              is sufficiently distinctive. The
place. Finally the applicant claims compensation for damage                                           Applicant claims further that the
he claims to have suffered.                                                                           burden to proof otherwise lays
                                                                                                      with the Board of Appeal. It is not
                                                                                                      up to the Applicant to show that
                                                                                                      article 7(1) (b) of the Council
                                                                                                      Regulation No 40/94 is not appli-
                                                                                                      cable.
Action brought on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.
against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                              Market
                         (Case T-194/01)
                         (2001/C 303/37)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 August 2001 by the Government
                                                                         of Gibraltar against the Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal                                   (Case T-195/01)
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.,
a company registered in Rotterdam (Netherlands) represented                                      (2001/C 303/38)
by Dr. Verna von Bomhard and Dr. Andreas Renck of Lovells
Boesebeck Droste, Alicante (Spain).
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade             European Communities on 20 August 2001 by the Govern-
      Marks and Designs) of 22 May 2001 (Case R 1086/                    ment of Gibraltar, represented by Alastair Sutton, Michael
      2000-1) to provide that the trade mark at hand is eligible         Llamas and Walter Schuster, of White & Case, Brussels
      for registration as a Community trade mark;                        (Belgium).
—     alternatively, the decision be annulled;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                         —     annul the Commission’s decision to open the procedure
                                                                               under Article 88(2), in the form of the letter of 11 July
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                2001 addressed to the United Kingdom;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Applicant for the Com-         Unilever N.V.
munity trade mark:
The Community trade            Three dimensional mark (Pebble            Pleas in law and main arguments
mark concerned:                shape)        —         Application
                               No 1 418 250 for certain goods
                               in class 3                                The Government of Gibraltar introduced a tax scheme under
                                                                         which certain companies, under certain conditions, were
Decision of the Exam-          Rejection of the Application              exempt from income tax and subject only to a fixed tax (the
iner:                                                                    exempt company legislation). That legislation was modified by
                                                                         several amendments before and after the accession of the
Decision of the Board of       Partial acceptance of the Appeal          United Kingdom and Gibraltar to the European Communities
Appeal:                                                                  in 1973.