CELEX: C2002/191/51
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-180/02: Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras against Commission of the European Communities

C 191/30                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.8.2002
for the conclusions concerning the impact of the scheme on                In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
intra-Community trade.                                                    of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of
                                                                          employment of the applicant during the period in which he
(1) OJ 1997 C 283, p. 2.                                                  was on secondment in the interests of the service. The
                                                                          applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary
                                                                          decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be
                                                                          protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                          officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular
                                                                          nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges
                                                                          infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-180/02)
                          (2002/C 191/51)                                 Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l.
                                                                          against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (Case T-186/02)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (2002/C 191/52)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by Georgios                          (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by              Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers,                                application was drafted: Italian)
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l., whose registered office is
      Administration and Management Directorate Luxem-
      bourg and Ispra of DG Admin:                                        in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by Federico
                                                                          Tedeschini, Maurizio Pinnarò and Patrik Santer.
      —     fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place
            of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing             The applicant claims that the Court should:
            his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual
            travel expenses and applying to his salary the                annul the decision of 19 March 2002 of the Third Board of
            weighting applicable to Greece;                               Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                          in the appeal against the decision of 28 February 2001 of the
      —     to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that           Fifth Unit of the Opposition Division and consequently
            decision, any amount in general;                              uphold the registration application submitted by the applicant
                                                                          undertaking.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg,                  The Community trade            Figurative mark ‘DIESELIT’ —
was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek                 mark concerned:                Registration            application
Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospec-                                        No 880211, registration sought
tive effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment                                             in respect of goods and services
as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Further-                                          within Classes 7, 11 and 21 (flat
more, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary,                                                irons, steam irons and ironing
pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general.                                               boards)