CELEX: C2001/227/46
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-106/01: Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum against the Council of the European Union

C 227/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.8.2001
Pleas in law                   — The Board of Appeal ignored              becoming established on 1 April 1985. The applicant conse-
                                   the fact that the conflicting          quently pleads infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to
                                   mark consisted not of the term         the Staff Regulations and breach of the general provisions for
                                   ‘miss fifties’ but of a word and       the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
                                   pictorial mark, containing a           Regulations.
                                   great variety of word and pic-
                                   torial components.
                               — There was no conceptual con-
                                   nection between ‘Fifties’ and
                                   ‘miss fifties’.
                                                                          Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines S.A.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-107/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 227/47)
Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum
          against the Council of the European Union                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-106/01)
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines
                         (2001/C 227/46)                                  S.A., a mining company established at Puteaux (France),
                                                                          represented by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the implicit decision of 21 April 2001 by which
                                                                                the Commission refused to uphold the complaint lodged
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                                by the mining company Sacilor Lormines S.A. and
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                                registered on 21 February 2001 under No SG 01 A/2321;
Communities on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum, residing
in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                 —     in the alternative, annul the decision of 30 March
Peere, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      2001 by which the Commission refused to uphold
                                                                                the complaint lodged by the mining company Sacilor
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Lormines S.A. and registered on 21 February 2001 under
                                                                                No SG 01 A/2321;
—     annul the Council’s decision of 8 June 2000 fixing the              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      calculation of the number of years of pensionable service
      with which he is to be credited pursuant to Article 11(2)
      of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations following the                Pleas in law and principal arguments
      transfer to the Community pension scheme of the
      pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry
      into service;                                                       By letter of 30 March 2001, the Commission refused to
                                                                          uphold the applicant’s complaint requesting the opening of a
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty against the
                                                                          French Government. In support of its action for a declaration
                                                                          of failure to act and for annulment, the applicant pleads
                                                                          infringement by the Commission of Article 88 of the ECSC
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Treaty. According to the applicant, the French Government
                                                                          has infringed Articles 4(c) and 86 of the ECSC Treaty by
                                                                          imposing special charges on the applicant. This constitutes, it
The applicant disputes the salary taken into consideration by             claims, an unlawful act against which the Commission should
the Council when calculating the number of years of pension-              have taken action in accordance with Article 88 of the ECSC
able service to be credited to him following the transfer of the          Treaty. In addition, the applicant pleads, in the context of its
pension rights acquired by him prior to his entry into service.           action for annulment, breach of the essential procedural
According to the applicant, the Council should have taken                 requirements of the decision of 30 March 2001 and violation
into consideration the salary received by him upon his entry              of the principle of sound administration.
into service on 1 November 1983, initially as a member of the
auxiliary staff and subsequently as a member of the temporary
staff, and not the salary corresponding to his grade upon