CELEX: C2002/169/59
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-82/02: Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities

13.7.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/33
2.    That suspension is subject to the following conditions: first, the     The applicant claims that the conduct of the Parliament is not
      applicant shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First            covered by the legislation promulgated and that it has been
      Instance and at the Commission, by 5 August 2002, an                   prompted by considerations which are not germane to the
      interim report on its financial situation to 1 July 2002; second,      matter. The Parliament found in 1998 that the applicant had a
      the applicant shall repay to the BvS a first instalment of the         residence in Germany, and the applicant sent, together with
      contested aid in the sum of 256 000 euros by 31 December               the annual declaration, a confirmation of registration issued
      2002 and shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First             by the local authority for his place of residence. He claims to
      Instance and at the Commission, within one week of making              have proved to the administration that he has only one
      the payment, written proof of the said part repayment of the           German residence and a corresponding centre of vital interests,
      contested aid; third, the applicant shall lodge at the Registry of     and that there is thus no valid reason entitling the adminis-
      the Court of First Instance and at the Commission, by                  tration to demand further proof. The administrative practice
      31 January 2003, a report on its financial situation to                of the Parliament is neither lawful nor reasonable; moreover,
      31 December 2002.                                                      it does not accord with the duties of mutual cooperation.
3.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                             Action brought on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn, Inc.
                                                                             against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                                         Market
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf
Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament
    and the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-107/02)
                           (Case T-82/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/60)
                          (2002/C 169/59)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn,
An action against the European Parliament and the Com-                       Inc., represented by Mr Geert Glas of Allen & Overy, Brussels
mission of the European Communities was brought before the                   (Belgium).
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg,
of Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. Heyland, lawyer,               A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   was Atofina Chemicals, Inc.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     by way of modification to the European Parliament’s                    —     annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17
      decision of 28 May 2001, order the appointing authority                      January 2002 in case R 1003/2000-1 to the extent that
      to apply to the applicant’s emoluments as a former                           it annuls the Decision nr 2004/2000 of the Opposition
      servant of the Communities, with effect from December                        Division of 7 September 2000; remit the case to the
      2000, the weighting for the Federal Republic of Germany,                     Opposition Division for further prosecution; order each
      to pay over the amounts not paid since then and to make                      party to bear their own costs incurred in connection with
      corresponding payments in future for as long as the                          the appeal;
      applicant maintains his residence in Germany.
                                                                             —     order the Office to pay all costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the                 Applicant for the Com-        BetzDearborn, Inc.
European Parliament who has been retired since 1998, is                      munity trade mark:
contesting the Parliament’s decision not to apply any weighting
to the applicant’s retirement pension since 1 December 2001                  The Community trade           The word mark ‘BIOMATE’ for
in the absence of proof that he actually resides in Germany.                 mark concerned:               certain goods in class 1