CELEX: C1998/397/64
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-19 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff and Cie SA against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case T-177/98)

C 397/32             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.12.98
Ð in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit                The applicant claims that the Court should:
     rejection of the applicant's request, registered on
     27 May 1998, to be classified in grade A 4 with
     additional seniority in step in accordance with the           Ð declare unlawful the procedure to be followed in the
     Staff Regulations;                                                event of absence because of sickness, in force in the
                                                                       Council since 18 September 1997;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
                                                                   Ð annul the Council's decision to regard the applicant's
                                                                       absence from 9 to 22 February 1998 as unauthorised
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    and to deduct that absence from her annual leave;
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that, by appointing him to grade
A 5, step 5, instead of grade A 4 with additional seniority
in step, the appointing authority failed to take into              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
account his professional experience and specialist skills; it
omitted to undertake any real examination of the
applicant's situation and thereby infringed the second             The applicant submits, first, that the defendant failed to
paragraph of Article 5(1), Article 5(3), the second                comply in the present case with the procedure to be
paragraph of Article 25 and Articles 31 and 32 of the              followed in the event of absence because of sickness or
Staff Regulations, as well as Annex I thereto.                     accident' which it itself introduced and brought to the
                                                                   notice of staff by Communication No 117/97 of
                                                                   18 September 1997.
In addition, the contested decisions in breach of the 1983
decision concerning the criteria applicable to appointment
in grade and classification in step on recruitment as              She further contests the lawfulness of that implementing
amended on 7 February 1986.                                        provision, in that it provides, in the event of a dispute
                                                                   concerning the conclusions of the medical examination,
                                                                   for an arbitration procedure' which disregards the rights
Furthermore, the appointing authority is required by               of defence of the person concerned, since it does not allow
general principles to apply equal treatment to the                 him to designate the doctor of his choice to safeguard his
situations of officials and to take administrative decisions       rights and interests by his presence.
which are based on proper grounds, that is to say, not
vitiated by manifest errors of law or of fact.
                                                                   In the applicant's opinion, where the administration has
                                                                   before it such a dispute, it is obliged to refer the matter to
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of the       an invalidity committee, in accordance with Article 59(3)
protection of legitimate expectations and misuse of                of the Staff Regulations.
powers.
                                                                   The applicant submits, finally, that the contested decisions
                                                                   lack any statement of reasons.
Action brought on 15 October 1998 by Maria Adelina
    Biasutto against the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-171/98)                             Action brought on 26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA
                                                                   and Davidoff and Cie SA against the European Parliament
                        (98/C 397/63)                                        and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                         (Case T-177/98)
               (Language of the case: French)                                              (98/C 397/64)
An action against the Commission of the European                                 (Language of the case: German)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 October
1998 by Maria Adelina Biasutto, residing in Brussels,              An action against the European Parliament and the
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise Parmentier,         Council of the European Union was brought before the
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Luxembourg at the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30              26 October 1998 by Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff and
Rue de Cessange.                                                   Cie SA, of Fribourg and Geneva (Switzerland), represented
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 397/33
by Dr Rolf Wägenbaur, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 infringement of the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               grade-related aspects of intelectual property rights).
Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                   (1) Case T-175/98 Una Film GmbH v. Parliament and Council.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
1. annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament
    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                       Action brought on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
    approximation of the laws, regulations and                     Guijarro and Others against the Council of the European
    administrative provisions of the Member States                                              Union
    relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco                                 (Case T-179/98)
    products (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9), at least in so far
    as it prohibits or hinders sponsorship and advertising                                  (98/C 397/65)
    in respect of marks which were also used in
    advertising for products other than tobacco products
                                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
    before 30 July 1998;
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2. order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                   Communities on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
                                                                   Guijarro, Eva Hellgren, Petri Samuli Laaksonen, Hans
                                                                   Lund, Daniel Marlier, Maria Augusta Santos, Agneta
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Sederowsky, NoeÂ Youssouroum and Jacqueline Willems,
                                                                   all residing in Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis
                                                                   and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
The applicants are companies incorporated under Swiss              Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessante.
law. The first applicant is the owner of the rights to the
Davidoff' trade mark outside the tobacco sector and
awards licences workwide for diversification products              The applicants claim that the Court should:
under the Davidoff' and associated marks. The second
applicant is the owner of the rights to the Davidoff' mark
with respect to tobacco products, including smokers'               Ð annul the Council's decision of 12 January 1998;
articles such as lighters etc.
                                                                   Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
While originally only tobacco products were marketed
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
under the Davidoff' mark, now a variety of diversification
products, generally produced under licence, such as
cosmetics, spirits, leather goods, ties, watches, spectacles       The applicants, who are officials of the Council of the
etc. are also marketed under that mark. In the applicants'         European Union, noted faults, omissions, poor
submission, there is a significant difference between the          workmanship and defects affecting the Justus Lipsius
advertisements for tobacco and those for the other                 Building where they work.
diversification products, and the latter do not give rise to
any associations with Davidoff' tobacco products.
                                                                   After taking numerous informal steps, they made a formal
                                                                   request for:
The applicants submit that they rely on the licences
continuing to be able to advertise the licensed products, in       Ð the appointment of an expert, chosen by agreement
order to be able to ensure the continued existence of the               with the representatives of the staff, and instructed,
Davidoff' diversification products and the jobs associated             after having access to all documents relating to the
therewith.                                                              Justus Lipsius Building, to report all faults and
                                                                        deficiencies affecting the building and jeopardising the
                                                                        safety of staff and visitors, indicate the appropriate
                                                                        remedial work and check the proper performance of
As regards the law, the applicants rely on similar                      that work;
arguments to those which have already been put forward
in Case T-175/98 (1). As additional pleas in law, however,
they also put forward misuse of discretion, breach of other        Ð an undertaking to carry out or have carried out all the
fundamental rights (freedom of the press, right to one's                work specified by the above expert with a view to
name as an emanation of the right of personality, right to              bringing the building into proper state in accordance
equal treatment, freedom to carry on a profession) and                  with the expert's report;