CELEX: C2001/045/49
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-372/00: Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Mário Campolargo against the Commission of the European Communities

10.2.2001             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 45/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade Mark concerned:         Word mark ‘UltraPlus’ — Appli-              The applicant in this case, the same as in Case T-91/00 (1),
                              cation No. 716597                           challenges the refusal of the Settlements Office of the Joint
                                                                          Sickness Insurance Scheme in Luxembourg to reimburse sums
                                                                          incurred by him in the first half of the year 2000, on care
Product or Service:           Class 21 (plastic ovenware for              services needed by one of his sons, as assistance by medical
                              use in microwave, convection and            auxiliaries within the meaning of Paragraph 1 of Title X of
                              conventional ovens)                         Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance. The Settlements
                                                                          Office authorised those services only as nursing attendance
Contested        Decision     Refusal of registration by the              within the meaning of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of those rules.
before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Pleas in law relied on:       Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)           raised in Case T-91/00.
                              and (c) of Regulation 40/94.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 24.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Mário Campo-
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo Kind                         largo against the Commission of the European Communi-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                                     ties
                        (Case T-362/00)                                                           (Case T-372/00)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 45/49)
                         (2001/C 45/48)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Mário
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo                        Campolargo, residing at Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Kind, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar,             Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 15 February
                                                                                2000 annulling the appointment of the applicant as head
                                                                                of the former unit DG XIII/G/2 and his promotion to
—     annul the measures challenged for unlawful and                            grade A3, and the appointing authority’s implicit decision
      erroneous application of the system of repayment                          of 12 September 2000 giving a negative response to the
      adopted;                                                                  complaint submitted by the applicant;
—     order the Commission to carry out settlement, as in the             —     order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to
      past, on the basis of invoices in respect of expenses for                 Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      paramedical assistance produced by the insured;                           First Instance and the expenses necessarily incurred for
                                                                                the purposes of the proceedings, in particular the travel
                                                                                and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of law-
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    yers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of those Rules.
 ---pagebreak--- C 45/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicants claims that the Court should:
The applicant states that he was informed in August 1999 of               —     annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
his appointment to the post of head of unit DG XIII/G/2 and                     request submitted by Ms Dubigh on 24 September 1999
of his promotion to grade A3, but that the Director-General                     for the regularisation of her administrative situation by
for Personnel announced to him in February 2000 that he had                     the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary agent
decided to annul those decisions in the light of a complaint                    from 12 May 1997 and the conferment on her of the
submitted by an official who had also applied for the post in                   rights attaching thereto;
question. In the present proceedings, the applicant contests
that decision withdrawing his appointment and promotion.                  —     annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
                                                                                request submitted by Ms Zaur-Gora on 24 September
He maintains that the decision which has been withdrawn:                        1999 for the regularisation of her administrative situation
                                                                                by the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary
—     was not adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff                      agent from 22 May 1997 and the conferment on her of
      Regulations of officials or of vacancy notices 07 of                      the rights attaching thereto;
      2 February 2000, inasmuch as those rules were scrupu-
      lously observed, having regard to the seniority criteria            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      needing to be fulfilled in order to qualify for promotion;
—     was not adopted on the basis of any manifest error of               Pleas in law and main arguments
      assessment in the examination of the comparative merits
      and staff reports of the candidates, or in breach of any of
      the vacancy notices in issue; and                                   The applicants state that, since 12 May and 22 May 1997
                                                                          respectively, they have performed, without interruption, the
—     is not vitiated by any misuse of powers on the part of the          same duties as secretaries/typists in the same units, working
      appointing authority.                                               successively as members of the interim staff and as members
                                                                          of the auxiliary staff. In their view, the formal nature of the
                                                                          contracts and the classification applied to them by the parties
In addition, as regards the contested decision, the applicant
                                                                          had no effect on the de facto circumstances.
pleads:
—     infringement of the right to a fair hearing;                        Thus, the tasks carried out by the applicants are characterised
                                                                          by their continuity; the duties performed by them have been
—     infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of            of a permanent nature.
      reasons;
—     infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-           In support of their claims, the applicants plead infringement
      imate expectations; and                                             of the principles of sound administration and proper staff
                                                                          management, together with a misuse of powers in the present
—     infringement of the principles of equal treatment, pro-             case.
      portionality and sound administration.
Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Danielle Dubigh                     Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-
and Tamara Zaur-Gora against the Commission of the                        ello against the Commission of the European Communi-
                     European Communities                                                                 ties
                         (Case T-375/00)                                                           (Case T-378/00)
                          (2001/C 45/50)                                                            (2001/C 45/51)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Danielle                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Dubigh, residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, residing              European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and              Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                                     and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.