CELEX: C2000/302/65
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-196/00: Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities

C 302/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Thomas Cook Group                     Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Luc Verheyden against
Limited and Interpayment Services Limited against the                          the Commission of the European Communities
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                (Case T-196/00)
                        (Case T-195/00)
                                                                                                (2000/C 302/65)
                        (2000/C 302/64)
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        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 26 July 2000 by Luc Verheyden,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              residing at Angera (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
European Communities on 26 July 2000 by Thomas Cook                     Brussels Bar.
Group Limited and Interpayment Services Limited, represented
by Claude Delcorde and Edward Kling of Dechert Price &
Rhoads, Brussels.                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision not to promote the applicant, during
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   the course of the 1999 promotions procedure, to gra-
                                                                              de A 4 in a correspondingly higher step, in accordance
                                                                              with the Staff Regulations and with retroactive effect
—     order, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 288                  from 10 October 1989, as results from the exclusion of
      EC, the Commission to make good the damage caused                       his name from the list of persons promoted, which
      to the applicants by paying them the sum of GBP                         was published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1082 of
      25,5 million;                                                           13 August 1999;
—     order interest to be paid on the said sum at the annual           —     order the payment, by way of compensation for non-
      rate of 6 % from the date of judgment until the date of                 material damage, of the sum of BEF 500 000
      payment; and                                                            (12 394,68 euro), together with interest at the rate of 8 %
                                                                              per annum from the date of the judgment to be delivered
                                                                              until payment in full;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the application.
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that the sign which the Commission
adopted as the sign for the euro is substantially similar to one        The applicant in the present case objects to the fact that he was
of their own registered logos. The Commission’s use and                 not promoted to grade A 4 during the period corresponding to
inducement of third parties to use the euro sign amounts thus           1999.
to a trade mark infringement. The Commission failed to avoid
the evisceration of the logo and thus violated the principle of
respect for vested rights, the principle of the protection of           In support of his claims, he asserts that the appointing
legitimate expectations and the principles of non-discrimi-             authority infringed the second paragraph of Article 25 and
nation and of proportionality. Moreover, the Commission’s               Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
failure constitutes an unlawful expropriation of the applicants’        general principles of equality, the duty to have regard for the
property.                                                               welfare and interests of officials, the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations and the obligation to state reasons, by failing to
                                                                        take into account his merits and the extremely lengthy period
To the extent that the Commission acted lawfully, the burden            for which he has occupied his present grade, and that this has
of that action falls disproportionately and unfairly on the             placed him in a totally abnormal administrative situation, both
applicants and constitutes a ‘Sonderopfer’ and ‘rupture d’égalité       in view of the career prospects normally open to all officials in
devant les charges publiques’ giving rise to compensation.              a position identical or comparable to his and in the light of his
                                                                        objective expectations and merits.