CELEX: C2000/079/64
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-331/99: Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)

18.3.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/29
The applicant also criticizes what it considers to be an                Decision        contested      Refusal by the examiner to regis-
erroneous association made by the Commission between the                before the Board of            ter
principles of solidarity and redistribution within the public           Appeal:
health system, on the one hand, and requests to be supplied
by third-party, independent operators, on the other. In its             Pleas in law:                  — infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
view, extending the scope of distribution as a fundamental
                                                                                                           of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
element in the principle of solidarity to the point of demanding
sacrifices on the part of third-party suppliers is tantamount to                                       — misapplication of Article 7
placing a charge on the latter which is both discriminatory and                                            (1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
unjustified.                                                                                               No 40/94
(1) Joined Cases C-159 and C-160/91 Poucet and Pistre [1993] ECR
    I-637.
                                                                        Action brought on 25 November 1999 by Kasper Lund
                                                                                 Nielsen against the European Central Bank
Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi
HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Office for Har-
monisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and                                              (Case T-333/99)
                             Designs)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 79/65)
                         (Case T-331/99)
                          (2000/C 79/64)                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                  (Language of the case: German)                        before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 25 November 1999 by Kasper Lund Nielsen, Frank-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          furt-am-Main, Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regi-
Market (Trade marks and Designs) was brought before the                 na Steiner and Silvia Mittländer of the Frankfurt am Main Bar,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld                    Aloyse Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de
GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany (formerly Stora Carbonless Paper               Banques et d’Assurances, 29 Avenue Monterey, Luxembourg.
GmbH), represented by Ulrike Alice Ulrich, of Cohausz &
Florack, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Ernest T. Freylinger S.A., 234 Route d’Arlon,          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Luxembourg.
                                                                        1. Declare that his dismissal under Article 41 of the Con-
                                                                            ditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Bank (hereinafter ‘the CoE’), is ineffective and that the
                                                                            employment relationship between the applicant and the
— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of                        defendant was not dissolved by the dismissal but continues
     8 September 1999 in Case R 175/1999-3 and order the                    to subsist as though notice had not been given;
     Office to publish the Community trade mark application in
     accordance with Article 10 of the Trade Mark Regulation;
                                                                        2. Order the defendant to continue to employ the applicant as
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     a documentalist on the contractual terms of employment;
                                                                        3. Order the defendant to pay the basic salary retained under
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Article 44 of the CoE;
Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘Giroform’ — appli-             4. Declare the decision of the Management Committee, which
                              cation no 533406                              was notified to the applicant by letter of 9 November
                                                                            1999, invalid;
Goods or services:            Paper, cardboard and goods main-
                              ly from these materials included          5. Declare that the disciplinary proceedings brought against
                              in Class 16; printed matter                   the applicant under Article 43 of the CoE were unlawful.