CELEX: C2001/227/44
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-103/01: Action brought on 5 May 2001 by Michael Cwik against the Commission of the European Communities

11.8.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/23
Action brought on 5 May 2001 by Michael Cwik against                     Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Claudia Oberhauser
       the Commission of the European Communities                        against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                       Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-103/01)
                                                                                                  (Case T-104/01)
                        (2001/C 227/44)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 227/45)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined in accordance with Article
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Application drafted in German)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 May 2001 by Michael Cwik,
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              14 May 2001 by Claudia Oberhauser, residing in Munich
                                                                         (Germany), represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt.
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 13 June 2000                    Additional party before the Board of Appeal: Petit Liberto,
      transferring the applicant from the Information, Publi-            S.A., Gerona (Spain).
      cations and Economic Documentation Unit [subsequently
      renamed the Euro and EMU Unit (DG ECFIN-04)] to the
      General Coordination, Human Resources and Adminis-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      tration Unit [subsequently renamed, in March 2000,
      the Coordination, Human Resources, Information and                 —     set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      Administration Unit (DG ECFIN-01)];                                      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                                                                               28 February 2001 in Case R 757/1999-2;
—     in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision
      of the Commission rejecting the complaint submitted by             —     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings,
      the applicant on 26 September 2000;                                      and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                               ings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 25 000 by                      Market.
      way of compensation for non-material damage;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Applicant for regis-           The applicant.
                                                                         tration of a Community
The applicant maintains that, by not responding to the                   trade mark:
complaint made by him against his transfer, the Commission
failed to discharge its obligation to provide a statement of             Trade mark for which           The word mark ‘Fifties’ for goods
reasons for any decision adversely affecting an official, as laid        registration sought:           in Class 25 (Jeans — Items of
down in Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations. He also pleads                                          clothing) — Application No
misuse of powers. According to the applicant, the Commission                                            490003.
exerted real pressure on him, by denying him access to the
information necessary in order to enable him to perform his
                                                                         Owner of the mark put          Petit Liberto, S.A.
information and communication tasks, with a view to isolating
                                                                         forward as grounds for
him and harassing him. The applicant further argues that his
                                                                         refusal under the oppo-
functions as an economic and monetary specialist did not
                                                                         sition procedure:
correspond to the work which he was given to do following
his transfer to the ECFIN-01 unit. Lastly, the applicant claims
that, when deciding on his situation, the Commission failed to           Trade mark put forward         The registered Spanish word and
comply with its obligation to have regard to the interests               as grounds for refusal:        pictorial mark ‘miss fifties’
and welfare of officials, inasmuch as it did not take into                                              (No 1,723,310) for goods in
consideration the interests of the service or the interests of the                                      Class 25.
applicant. According to the applicant, that situation resulted
from a bad personal relationship existing for several years              Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application.
between him and his hierarchical superiors.                              sition Division:
                                                                         Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s com-
                                                                         Appeal:                        plaint.