CELEX: C2003/101/68
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-34/03: Action brought on 4 February 2003 by André Hecq and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE) against Commission of the European Communities

26.4.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/37
Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the applicant’s appli-                —     the decision of the College of Commissioners of
sition Division:               cation for ‘clothing, footwear and                       5 December 2001 improperly terminating the
                               toys’. Dismissal of the opposition                       framework agreement of 20 September 1974, reiter-
                               as to the remainder.                                     ating its approval of ‘operational rules concerning
                                                                                        the levels of concertation, the concertation body and
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal      of   the    applicant’s                   the relevant procedures’ dated 20 January 2000 and
Appeal:                        appeal.                                                  an alleged ‘agreement’ of 4 April 2001 on the
                                                                                        ‘resources to be made available to the central and
Pleas in law:                  —     infringement                 of                    the local staff committees and the unions’;
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                            —     annul, to the extent necessary, the abovementioned
                               —     absence of risk of confusion;                decisions of 15 January 2002, 23 January 2002 and
                                                                                  5 December 2001;
                               —     little distinctive character of
                                     the opposing trade mark
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay damages amounting to
                               —     lack of similarity of trade
                                                                                  EUR 100 000;
                                     marks
                               —     products largely dissimilar.
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs of of the action,
                                                                                  pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure and
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                  the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                                   proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence
                                                                                  expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or
                                                                                  lawyers, under Article 73(b) of those rules.
Action brought on 4 February 2003 by André Hecq and                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens
(SFIE) against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-34/03)                                    The applicant is an official of the Commission and secretary
                                                                            general of the ‘Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et
                         (2003/C 101/68)                                    Européens’ (SFIE) trade union.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,
                                                                            infringement of the framework agreement of 20 September
                                                                            1974, in particular of the final provisions thereof, and breach
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            of the general principles of contract law. According to the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            applicant, the framework agreement does not provide for
European Communities on 4 February 2003 by André Hecq,
                                                                            unilateral termination.
residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), and Syndicat des
Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE), whose
main offices are in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel,
lawyer.
                                                                            The applicant also alleges infringement of Articles 11 and 12
                                                                            of the framework agreement of 20 September 1974 in that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 the abovementioned provisions had not been agreed to by all
                                                                            the unions.
—     annul the decsion of the appointing authority of 4 Octo-
      ber 2002, notified to the applicant on 9 October 2002
      but received by him on 25 October 2002, rejecting the
      applicant’s complaint, lodged on 24 April 2002, pursuant              The applicant alleges next infringement of Article 24a of the
      to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in which he                 Staff Regulations, Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the framework
      criticised various decisions, in particular:                          agreement of 20 September 1974, manifest error of assessment
                                                                            and breach of the principle of non-discrimination. According
      —     two separate decisions notified on 15 January 2002              to the applicant, the criteria relating to representativeness are
            and 23 January 2002 respectively;                               erroneous and arbitrary and favour certain unions.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of non-             compensation for the material damage he allegedly suffered in
discrimination in that the contested decisions deprived the                the period between 1 July and 31 December 2001 and has
union of which the applicant is the secretary general of all               made the present application. In support of his arguments, he
manner of human and material resources without taking                      alleges infringement of the abovementioned article of the Staff
account of its representativeness.                                         Regulations.
Action brought on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro                            Action brought on 7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler
Pessoa e Costa against Commission of the European                          AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                           Communities                                                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                                     (Case T-39/03)
                          (Case T-36/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 101/70)
                         (2003/C 101/69)
                                                                           (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                                                                                                   submitted: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
European Communities on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro                      Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an               7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart, Germany,
address for service in Luxembourg.                                         represented by M. Trimborn, lawyer. AXON Leasing GmbH,
                                                                           Grasbrunn, Germany, was also a party to the proceedings
                                                                           before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Commission commited an administrative               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      fault by not reinstating the applicant to the first vacancy
      at Grade A 5 commensurate with his abilities;                        —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
                                                                                 4 November 2002 in appeal No R 329/2001-4 and
—     order the Commission to reconstitute his career and, in                    dismiss the appeal;
      particular, to pay him the remuneration to which he is
      entitled in respect of the period from 1 August to                   —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
      31 December 2001 together with default interest calcu-
      lated at the rate of 1.5 % per annum;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Applicant for Com-             The applicant
                                                                           munity trade mark:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Community trade mark           The word mark ‘AXOR’ for goods
                                                                           sought:                        and services in Classes 12 and 37
The applicant, an official working for the defendant, on leave                                            (automobiles and parts therefor
on personal grounds until 30 June 2001, requested his                                                     (included in Class 12) and motor
reinstatement, in accordance with Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff                                           vehicle maintenance and repair)
Regulations of officials of the European Communities. On                                                  — application No 1111061
30 May 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint claiming that
the defendant had failed to reinstate him to the first vacancy             Proprietor of mark or          AXON Leasing GmbH
corresponding to his grade and abilities. The applicant claims             sign cited in the oppo-
that that complaint was partially rejected so far as concerns              sition proceedings: