CELEX: C1999/048/59
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 7 December 1998 by Vasilios Boukouvalas against the European Parliament (Case T-193/98)

20.2.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/27
The applicant's fourth plea is that the treatment reserved        Action brought on 7 December 1998 by Vasilios
to good-faith brand diversification advertising is                       Boukouvalas against the European Parliament
disproportionate. In view of the fact that advertising for                             (Case T-193/98)
tobacco products is granted a milder treatment, the
treatment of good-faith brand diversification advertising is                            (1999/C 48/59)
also discriminatory.
                                                                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
The applicant's fifth plea is that the advertising ban
enacted by the Directive infringes its right to freedom of
speech and in particular cannot be justified under                An action against the European Parliament was brought
Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Rights.                                                           Communities on 7 December 1998 by Vasilios
                                                                  Boukouvalas, an official of the European Parliament,
The applicant's sixth plea is that the Directive deprives         resident in Brussels, represented by Professor Kharis
holders of trade-mark rights of the substance of their            Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for
rights and thus infringes the fundamental rights to               service in Luxembourg at the Office of VeÂronique
property and of freedom of trade, as well as the Paris            Duhaubois, 139 Rue Schetzel, L-2518.
Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð find the action admissible;
Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Alma Media                   Ð hold to be unlawful and annul (a) the implied refusal
Group Advertising SA & Co and Others against the                      of the defendant's staff to pay, in respect of the
European Parliament and the Council of the European                   applicant's father and mother, the allowance for
                           Union                                      persons treated as if they were dependent children,
                                                                      during the period from 1 August 1997 to 31 July
                      (Case T-176/98)                                 1998, notwithstanding the decision of the
                       (1999/C 48/58)                                 Secretary-General of 28 January 1998 and (b)
                                                                      Decision No 26039 of 9 September 1998, of the
                                                                      defendant finding that the applicant is not entitled to
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      the above allowance;
An action against the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union was brought before the              Ð order the defendant to pay that allowance to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                applicant for the abovementioned period, together
23 October 1998 by Alma Media Group Advertising SA &                  with interest for late payment at 8 % from the date
Co and Others, represented by Helen Papaconstantinou,                 upon which each monthly payment became due;
Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.                                  Ð order the defendant to pay the applicant's legal costs,
                                                                      and to so order even if the action is dismissed, because
                                                                      there are exceptional circumstances within the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                           meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 87(3) of
                                                                      the Rules of Procedure, in particular circumstances of
Ð annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament                 personal impecuniosity, as set out in the main body of
    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                          the application.
    approximation of the laws, regulations and
    administrative provisions of the Member States
    relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    products published (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9), and
                                                                  Infringement of Article 90 of the Staff
Ð order the European Parliament and the Council of the            Regulations and of the principles of the
    European Union to pay the costs.                              protection of legitimate expectations and of
                                                                  proper administration
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                  According to the applicant, any favourable reply by the
The grounds of the present application and its main               appointing authority to an official's administrative
arguments are those raised in Case T-172/98 Salamander            complaint must be binding on that body and, in any
v. Parliament and Council.                                        event, the subsequent revocation or amendment of the
                                                                  reply cannot retroactively deprive the official of the rights
                                                                  which flowed from it.
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/28              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.1999
Infringement of the internal rules regarding                      The Commission sought to justify its refusal to
competence and functioning of the European                        communicate the information at issue by relying on the
Parliament                                                        Code of conduct concerning public access to Commission
                                                                  documents and Article 7(1) and Article 9(3) of Council
                                                                  Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
Infringement of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to                      procedures for the award of public supply contracts.
the Staff Regulations and of the general
implementing provisions, as well as of
Annex V to the Staff Regulations                                  The applicant pleads in that regard breaches of the
                                                                  obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of the
                                                                  principles of equality and proportionality, as well as abuse
The applicant considers that the effect of the contested          of process and/or misuse of powers.
decision is a refusal to pay the allowance because the
calculation under Articles 5 to 9 of the general provisions
implementing the Staff Regulations was applied
incorrectly, as was Article 10 thereof. In particular, the
calculation made under Articles 5 to 9 should be annulled,
first, because the statement of reasons is inadequate and,
secondly, because the calculation is wrong in law and in          Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
fact. In the alternative, should that calculation be              Abizanda and Others v. Commission of the European
considered to be correct the applicant pleads that                                         Communities
Article 10 of the general implementing provisions should
                                                                                         (Case T-196/98)
have been applied.
                                                                                          (1999/C 48/61)
                                                                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Scan Office
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Design S.A. against the Commission of the European
                                                                  Instance on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
                        Communities
                                                                  Abizanda and Others, residing in Belgium and
                      (Case T-194/98)                             Luxembourg, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                  BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid
                       (1999/C 48/60)
                                                                  Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                  78 Avenue d'Auderghem.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                  The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                  should:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
1998 by Scan Office Design S.A., the registered office of         Ð annul the implied Commission decision contained in
which is in Brussels, represented by Benoît Mertens, of the           the letter from the Director General of Personnel of
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar,              9 September 1998;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's
Chambers, 47 Grand-Rue.                                           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Ð annul the contested decision;                                   The annulment is sought of the letter from the
                                                                  Commission Director General of Personnel of 9 September
                                                                  1998 indicating the defendant's approval of the content of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  the draft Royal Decree on the transfer of rights under
                                                                  public social security schemes to the social security scheme
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                for officials of the European Communities. That approval
                                                                  will entail the adoption in the near future of legislation by
                                                                  the Spanish Government, which, in the applicants'
The Commission refused the applicant's request for                opinion, will only partially bring to an end the persistent
communication of certain information concerning the bid           infringement by the Kingdom of Spain of the provisions of
made by the successful tenderer (Frezza Belgium S.A.) in          the Staff Regulations concerning transfer to the
the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of          Community pension scheme of the rights acquired by
office furniture, in which the applicant had also                 Community officials and other servants under national
participated.                                                     schemes.