CELEX: C2002/247/38
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-244/02: Action brought on 9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC (formerly known as G.D. Searle & Co) against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

12.10.2002            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/23
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the Commission not to include the
      applicant’s name in the list of officials most deserving of         By decision of 23 July 2001, the Commission department to
      promotion to Grade B 2 and the decision not to promote              which the applicant is posted requested that proceedings be
      him to that grade in the 2001 promotions procedure;                 initiated to recommence other proceedings allegedly initiated
                                                                          previously for a finding of professional incompetence of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               applicant. According to the applicant, the Director General of
                                                                          DG ADMIN interpreted that request as a request to ‘initiate
                                                                          proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations’.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the documents on which his
                                                                          department based its request show the imprecise way in which
The applicant in the present case, an official at Grade B 3               it is handling the file. The file in no way demonstrates that the
working for the defendant, challenges the appointing auth-                proceedings referred to were initiated in 1994 and 1996.
ority’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 2 in the context of
the 2001 promotions procedure.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                          —      lack of precision as regards the reopening of former
of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the                         proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations or
principles of equal treatment, that officials should have
                                                                                 the opening of new proceedings, without setting out the
reasonable career prospects and of the principle of sound
                                                                                 applicant’s conduct complained of;
administration.
                                                                          —      infringement of the rule audi alteram partem;
                                                                          —      infringement of the principle non bis in idem;
                                                                          —      breach of the principle that legitimate expectations are to
Action brought on 12 August 2002 by J against Com-                               be protected;
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                          —      breach of the principle of proportionality;
                        (Case T-243/02)                                   —      error of assessment of the facts and misuse of powers;
                        (2002/C 247/37)                                   —      lack of statement of reasons;
                   (Language of the case: French)                         —      infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 August 2002 by J, represented
by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC
                                                                          (formerly known as G.D. Searle & Co) against the Office
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                                      and Designs)
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 Feb-
      ruary 2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of                                             (Case T-244/02)
      29 December 2001;
—     annul the decision of 23 July 2001 asking DG ADMIN ‘to                                        (2002/C 247/38)
      initiate proceedings for a finding of repeated professional
      shortcomings as soon as possible’;                                                      (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the decision of 19 September 2001 concerning the
      initiation of proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff
      Regulations;                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
—     award damages to the applicant for the non-material                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 25 000;                    9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC (formerly known as
                                                                          G.D. Searle & Co), represented by Graham Farrington, Farring-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               ton & Co Solicitors, Reading (UK).
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of                 —     annul the implied rejection by the appointing authority
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                      of the request of 28 August 2001 for damages on account
      (Trademarks and Designs) of 19 June 2002;                                of the undue delay by the defendant in drawing up the
                                                                               applicant’s staff reports for the reference periods 1995-
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its                      1997 and 1997-1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                     the implied rejection of the complaint of 14 January
      Trademark number 1299809.                                                2002;
                                                                         —     award EUR 25 000 in damages by of compensation for
                                                                               non-material damage, that amount being fixed ex aequo et
                                                                               bono;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The trade mark con-          The figurative mark, presented as
cerned:                      design of capsule with yellow
                             bands          —           application
                             No 1299809
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Goods or service con-        Goods in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals
cerned:                      in the nature of anti-inflammatory          By his application, the applicant, an official of the Office de
                             analgesics)
                                                                         Contrôle de la Sécurité at Euratom, seeks an award of damages
                                                                         for the alleged delay in drawing up his staff report relating to
Decision        contested    Refusal of registration by the              the reference periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999.
before the Board of          examiner
Appeal:
                                                                         The applicant claims that, by refusing to finalise those reports
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal                     which are an essential assessment where the applicant’s career
Appeal:                                                                  is at stake, the defendant infringed Article 43 of the Staff
                                                                         Regulations, the provisions of the Guide de Notation and the
Grounds of claim:            Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b)           principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the defendant is in
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)             breach of its duty to have regard to the welfare of its officials
                                                                         and infringed the principle of sound administration.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 9 August 2002 by The Christian
                                                                         Science Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ,
                                                                         Scientist against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-
                              ties                                                                (Case T-247/02)
                        (Case T-246/02)                                                           (2002/C 247/40)
                        (2002/C 247/39)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                9 August 2002 by The Christian Science Board of Directors of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The First Church of Christ, Scientist, represented by Nicholas
European Communities on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer                  Green QC, Mark Engelman, barristers and by Geoffrey Smith
de Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges               and James Mitchiner, solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse,
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.               London (UK).