CELEX: C2000/079/81
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-361/99: Action brought on 30 December 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities and the European Investment Bank

C 79/38                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
     necessarily caught by the inward processing system and                  Community trade mark in the Community Trade Marks
     were thus constantly monitored by the Turkish customs                   Bulletin for the claimed services in Class 36 (insurance;
     authorities. It was the customs offices themselves which                financial affairs);
     stamped generally on the same day the export declarations
     which cleared the importation of duty-free components
                                                                         — in the alternative, annul the contested decision;
     and the ATRS. The Turkish offices themselves also dealt
     with clearance of licences, the recovery of securities, export
     formalities and the issuing of ATR certificates.                    — order the Office to pay such of the applicant’s costs as are
                                                                             recoverable.
— the Commission, despite being aware of the problem posed
     by the irregularities concerning the payment of the Turkish
     duties on components originating in third countries, did
     not consider that it should take appropriate measures to            Pleas in law and main arguments
     alert the operators concerned.
                                                                         Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘EuroHealth’ — appli-
— the error was not evident to the company, whose good                                                 cation no 293977
     faith was beyond reproach, and that they cannot be
     accused of being negligent.                                         Goods or services:            Goods and services in Class 36
                                                                                                       (insurance; financial affairs)
— it is justified in relying in the present case on a special
     circumstance within the meaning of Article 13 of Regu-              Decision         contested    Refusal by the examiner to regis-
     lation No 1430/79.                                                  before the Board of           ter
                                                                         Appeal:
Finally, the applicant takes the view that in any event, in the
operations in question, it acted as fiscal representative for the        Pleas in law:                 — infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
importer, which alone could be considered liable for any                                                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
customs debt.
                                                                                                       — misapplication of Article
                                                                                                           7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                                           No 40/94
                                                                                                       — failure to take into account
                                                                                                           Article 12(b) of Regulation
                                                                                                           (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 December 1999 by DKV Deutsche
Krankenversicherungs AG against the Office for Harmon-
 isation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-359/99)
                           (2000/C 79/80)
                                                                         Action brought on 30 December 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                      and the European Investment Bank
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                 (Case T-361/99)
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                                            (2000/C 79/81)
24 December 1999 by DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherungs
AG, Cologne, Germany, represented by Stephan v. Peter-
dorff-Campen, of von Rospatt, von der Osten, Pross, of the                                  (Language of the case: French)
Düsseldorf Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the chambers of De Bandt, van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue
Goethe, Luxembourg.                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties and the European Investment Bank was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              30 December 1999 by Karl L. Meyer, of Raiatea, French
                                                                         Polynesia, represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of Uturoa,
— vary the contested decision and order the office to                    French Polynesia, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     publish the sign EuroHealth, application no 293977, as a            at the offices of Mr Pakowski, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 10 January 2000 by ‘N’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
— hold that the Commission and/or the European Investment                                         (Case T-2/00)
    Bank have been guilty of manifest negligence in failing for
    15 years or more to require the local authorities and the
    bank SOCREDO to apply and make known association                                             (2000/C 79/82)
    decisions of the Council and comply with Community law
    applicable in French Polynesia, and that that failure has
    caused the applicant’s present legal difficulties;                                     (Language of the case: French)
— in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    sum of FRF 25 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    he has had to incur to protect his interests.                      European Communities on 10 January 2000 by ‘N’, domiciled
                                                                       in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas and Jean-Louis
                                                                       Dupont, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Tecqmenne, 3 Rue des
                                                                       Capucins.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission and the          — annul the Commission’s decision of 15 March 1999
European Investment Bank (EIB) are liable to compensate him                refusing to accept liability under Article 73 of the Staff
for the damage, imminent and foreseeable, which, he claims,                Regulations and Article 2 of the Rules on coverage of the
he is going to sustain owing to the failure of those institutions          risk of work-related accidents and illness in respect of the
to require the local authorities of French Polynesia and the               accident which he declared on 6 February 1996;
development bank SOCREDO to comply with Community
law and to apply and make known Council Decisions                      — so far as necessary, annul the implied decisions refusing
86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 and 91/482/EEC of 25 July                       the applicant’s administrative claims of 10 and 15 June
1991 on the association of the overseas countries and                      1999 against that decision;
territories with the European Economic Community.
                                                                       — order the defendant to reimburse him with the medical
                                                                           fees he paid in implementation of the decision of 15 March
The applicant claims that, had the Commission and the EIB:                 1999;
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay him an amount of damages to
— properly carried out their monitoring and supervision                    be decided by the Court in compensation for non-material
    duties,                                                                damage suffered by him;
                                                                       — and order the defendant to pay the costs.
— exercised their power to bring proceedings before the
    Court of Justice, where appropriate,
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
— applied the provisions of the association decisions which
    make expressly evident the legal situation of ‘partnership’,       The applicant challenges the Commission’s refusal to treat his
                                                                       infection with the human immunodeficiency (HIV) virus as an
                                                                       accident for the purposes of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       and Article 2 of the Rules on coverage of the risk of
— informed investors of the aim and purpose of those                   work-related accidents and illness. He relies on a breach of
    decisions, and informed the local people of their legal            Article 2 of those Rules against that decision, and argues as
    position vis-à-vis the Community and of their rights,              follows:
                                                                       (a) Error in law as to the nature of the injurious event and of
since 1984, the legal problems he has encountered because of
                                                                           the causal link between that event and the fact giving rise
the inveterate failure of the local authorities to observe the
                                                                           to it. It is clear that the requirements of Article 2 of the
primacy of Community law would never have arisen.
                                                                           Rules are met where there is evidence not of the specific
                                                                           fact which caused the injurious event but rather of
                                                                           the injurious event itself, including the fact that it was
                                                                           extraneous to the victim’s body and sudden, violent or
                                                                           abnormal. In this case, the opinion of the medical com-
                                                                           mittee, on which the contested decision is based, itself