CELEX: C2000/135/30
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-33/00: Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez Páramo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (2) order the reimbursement to the applicant of the OHIM
                                                                            appeal fee and order the OHIM to pay the costs of the
— annul the decision adopted on 25 November 1999 by the                     proceedings;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered            (3) in the alternative, order that the disclaimer ‘Alle vorge-
    under number R 75/1999-3;                                               nannten Waren/Dienstleistungen für eine in München
                                                                            stattfindende Messe’ (‘All the aforementioned goods/ser-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     vices in relation to a trade fair held in Munich’) be annexed
                                                                            to the specification of goods/services.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           pictorial mark using the colours
cerned:                       white and red — application               The trade mark con-            the denominative and allegedly
                              No 840 132                                cerned:                        pictorial mark ‘electronica’ —
                                                                                                       application No 34587
Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-
cerned:                       ing detergent                             Goods or service con-          goods and services in Classes 16,
                                                                        cerned:                        35 and 41 (including catalogues
                              Class 42, research in that field                                         relating to, and the organisation
                                                                                                       of, trade fairs in respect of build-
                                                                                                       ing components and construction
                                                                                                       groups in the electronics sector)
Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
peal:                                                                   before the Board of Ap-        examiner
                                                                        peal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Grounds of claim:              — incorrect        application    of
                              — Misuse of discretionary pow-                                               Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                  ers                                                                      (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                                       — incorrect        application    of
                                                                                                           Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                                           (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 18 February 2000 by Messe München
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez
                                                                        Páramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
                         (Case T-32/00)                                                        pean Communities
                        (2000/C 135/29)                                                          (Case T-33/00)
                                                                                                (2000/C 135/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                             (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 February 2000 by Messes München GmbH, of Munich                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Germany), represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt, of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Mitscherlich & Partner, Sonnenstrasse 33, Munich.                       European Communities on 17 February 2000 by Natalia
                                                                        Martı́nez Páramo, of Brussels, Anna Sodro, of Sterrebeek,
                                                                        Belgium, Inès Van Lierde, of Beersel, Belgium, Jean-Martial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Marenne, of Brussels, Ron Moys, of West Malling, the United
                                                                        Kingdom, and Michael Horgan, of Brussels, represented by Eric
(1) annul the decision adopted on 17 December 1999 by the               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
    in the Internal Market in appeal No R 177/1998-2;                   Rheinsheim.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Anthony Gold-
                                                                       stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the decisions of 19 April 1999 (concerning Martı́nez                                          ties
    Páramo, Jean-Martial Marenne, Inès Van Lierde and Ron
    Moys) and 29 April 1999 (concerning Anna Sodro and
                                                                                                (Case T-35/00)
    Michael Horgan) signed on behalf of the President of the
    jury by a head of unit;
                                                                                               (2000/C 135/31)
— annul the decisions of 17 November 1999 and 12 January
    2000 (the latter concerning Michael Horgan) rejecting the
    applicants’ claims of 30 June 1999 (brought by Martı́nez
    Páramo, Michael Horgan and Ron Moys) and 29 June                                    (Language of the case: English)
    2000 (brought by Anna Sodro, Inès Van Lierde and
    Jean-Martial Marenne) under Article 90(2) of the Staff
    Regulations;                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Anthony
— order the defendant to grant access to the corrected copies          Goldstein, represented by Raymond St. John Murphy, Solicitor.
    of the written tests taken by the applicants in competitions
    COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98;
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
                                                                       — declare that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission are
                                                                            in breach of Article 218 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January 2000;
The applicants, who are category A or category B temporary
agents who participated in the tests for the competitions
COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98, take issue with the content               — order the Commission to pay the costs.
of the letter addressed to them by a head of unit of the
Commission, on behalf of the President of the jury, confirming
the marks for the written tests awarded to them by the jury.
That letter stated that the marking system adopted by the jury         Pleas in law and main arguments
had been established objectively and had taken account of
each candidate’s comprehension of the subject-matter, the
structure of the test, and the candidate’s written expression,         The application in the present case is for annulment of the
logic and reasoning ability. It stressed that the tests had been       decision contained in a letter addressed by the Commission on
marked, unnamed, by two readers independently before the               21 January 2000 to Merriman White, Solicitors, concerning a
jury decided upon the final marks, which it awarded in a               request for information from the Commission pursuant to the
uniform fashion for all the candidates.                                order of a national court in the United Kingdom for such
                                                                       assistance, made under the Notice on Cooperation between
                                                                       National Courts and the Commission in applying Articles 81
In support of their claim the applicants allege a failure to           and 82 of the Treaty.
comply with the terms of the notice of competition, infringe-
ment of Article 255 of the Treaty of Rome, Articles 25 and 30
of the Staff Regulations and Annex III thereto laying down the         The purpose of the request for information is to enable the
competition procedure, and the breach of certain general legal         national court to determine whether the legal conditions are
principles, including the principle of sound administration, the       satisfied for the application of the prohibitions contained in
protection of the rights of the defence and the obligation to          Articles 10, 81 and 82 of the Treaty to the anticompetitive
state reasons.                                                         behaviour of the General Medical Council in relation to the
                                                                       conditions for the recognition of medical qualifications in the
                                                                       United Kingdom.
The applicants take the view that they are not in a position to
ascertain that the tests which they failed were in fact marked
properly because they were not informed of the marks awarded           In support of his action the applicant pleads:
to each of them or of the marking system. Furthermore, they
were not allowed to see their corrected papers, and thus it is
impossible for them to make any comparisons or to assess any           — infringement of Article 250 of the Treaty, inasmuch as the
errors they made.                                                           contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement
                                                                            of reasons;
                                                                       — breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;