CELEX: C2002/261/37
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-272/02: Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di Napoli against Commission of the European Communities

26.10.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 261/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
The applicant contests, first, the Commission’s rejection of the         munity trade mark:
applicant’s request that it institute legal proceedings with
regard to the harassment complained of. Secondly, the appli-             The Community trade          Word mark ‘RUFFLES’ — Appli-
cant contests the implied decision not to recognise the illness          mark concerned:              cation No 000096875, for goods
suffered by the applicant, following such harassment, as an                                           in Classes 29 and 30 (food and
occupational disease.                                                                                 condiments)
                                                                         Proprietor of the right to   Convent Knabber-Gebäck GmbH.
In support of the action in respect of the first act, the applicant      the trade mark or sign
alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.          asserted by way of oppo-
In the applicant’s view, the reasons for the decision are                sition in the opposition
inconsistent.                                                            proceedings:
                                                                         Trade mark or sign           German mark ‘RIFFELS’ registered
Moreover, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(1)            asserted by way of oppo-     for goods in Class 29 (potato
and (2) of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission refuses          sition in the opposition     chips)
to take legal action and in that it refuses to grant the applicant       proceedings:
access to information which it has available to it regarding the
harassing conduct.                                                       Decision of the Oppo-        Application upheld as regards
                                                                         sition Division:             ‘dried vegetables’ (Class 29) and
                                                                                                      ‘fine pastry and confectionery’
In support of the action in respect of the second act, the                                            (Class 30). Application dismissed
applicant alleges infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff                                          as regards ‘cereal preparations’
Regulations. The applicant claims not to have received any                                            (Class 30).
reasons for the implied rejection of the request submitted.
                                                                         Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                         Appeal:
                                                                         Grounds of claim:            Breach of the principles that the
                                                                                                      rights of the defence are to be
                                                                                                      observed and that reasons must
                                                                                                      be provided, in accordance with
                                                                                                      Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation
Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc.                                                    No 40/94, and of co-existence
against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market                                               and comparability between Com-
              (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                        munity trade marks and national
                                                                                                      trade marks
                        (Case T-269/02)
                        (2002/C 261/36)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Comune di
                                                                         Napoli against Commission of the European Communities
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                                       (Case T-272/02)
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 September 2002 by Pepsico Inc., whose registered office is                                     (2002/C 261/37)
in New York (United States of America), represented by
Enrique Armijo Chávarri.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul decision No 114/2000-1 of the OHIM of 10 June                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      2002;                                                              European Communities on 4 September 2002 by the Munici-
                                                                         pality of Naples, represented by Massimo Merola, Claudio
—     order OHIM to pay the costs.                                       Tesauro, Giuseppe Tarallo and Edoardo Barone, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 261/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against
                                                                                            European Investment Bank
—     annul the decision of the Commission notified in a letter
      of 11 June 2002 concerning ERDF action No 66 and the                                        (Case T-275/02)
      correction of the accounts relating to ERDF action No 67;
—     order the Commission to pay the expenditure incurred                                        (2002/C 261/38)
      by the Comune di Napoli in these proceedings, including
      in respect of lawyers’ fees.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 9 September 2002 by D, represented by Joëlle Choucroun,
                                                                         lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of
11 June 2002 closing ERDF file 85 05 03 066 (hereafter ‘ERDF
No 66’) — ‘Metropolitan link between Museo and Dante’ —
by which the European Commission reduced the amount of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
the contribution initially granted for completion of the project
in question and implicitly rejecting the request for adjustment
of the balance relating to earlier related ERDF action                   —     declare the present action admissible and well founded;
No 85 05 03 067 (hereafter ‘ERDF No 67’) — ‘Rail link —
Naples Town Centre’. The contested decision accepted a level             —     annul the unilateral decision of the European Investment
of expenditure lower than the amount initially provided for and                Bank dated 26 March 2002 concerning the four-month
actually incurred, and accordingly reduced the contribution                    extension of the six-month trial-period agreed between
initially agreed by the defendant.                                             the parties;
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Investment Bank
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the                  dated 25 June 2002, reproduced on 28 June 2002,
principle that legitimate expectations be protected and of                     unilaterally terminating outside the trial period and with
fairness, as well as failure to provide reasons.                               effect from 15 July 2002 the fixed-period employment
                                                                               contract with the applicant signed on 2 October 2001;
                                                                         —     order the European Investment Bank to pay to the
The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission:                       applicant EUR 45 000 (forty-five thousand euros) by way
                                                                               of damages;
—     gave rise, by its own previous conduct, to legitimate
      expectations on the part of the applicant regarding the            —     order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.
      possibility that it might receive the full agreed amount,
      since the work covered by the intervention had been
      completed as planned, and the eligible expenditure —
      actually incurred and properly accounted for — were on
      the whole not less than the initial planned investment.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     rejected the request for adjustment of the balance of
      ERDF intervention No 67 and reduced the contribution               The applicant in the present case contests the extension of the
      provided for in the context of ERDF No 66 on the ground            probation period to be worked for the defendant, together
      that the eligible expenditure was of a lower amount (in            with its unilateral termination of the applicant’s employment
      that it was erroneously already attributed to the new              contract at the end of that period.
      intervention), despite the fact the expenditure incurred
      was on the whole greater and the acknowledgment, by
      the defendant, that the work had been completed in
      accordance with the project.                                       In support of the arguments put forward, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of legality, in that neither
                                                                               the letter engaging him nor the Staff Regulations of the