CELEX: C2003/251/31
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-281/03: Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura against the Council of the European Union

C 251/16              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The pleas in law and arguments of the applicant are the same
                                                                        as in Case T-278/03 (Van Mannekus v Council).
The applicants, who are the proprietors of a number of trade
marks and company names containing the word ‘Galileo’ as an
                                                                        (1) OJ L 143, p. 5.
essential component, argue that the adoption of that word by
the Commission as the name for the Community project on
the European satellite radio navigation system infringes their
trade mark rights.
The action is based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty. The
applicants claim there is a likelihood of confusion based on
the alleged similarity between the signs in question and                Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura
between the goods and services sold by the applicants and                        against the Council of the European Union
the subject-matter of the Community project. They also claim
that the Commission acted unfairly and negligently with regard                                     (Case T-281/03)
to their rights, and plead infringement of the principle of
proportionality.                                                                                  (2003/C 251/31)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura,
                                                                        residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, lawyer.
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus &
   Co. B.V. against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-280/03)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 in so far
                                                                              as it does not:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus & Co. B.V.,
Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by H. Bleier, lawyer.                    1.    delete, from the definitive report for the period from
                                                                                   1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, the following words
                                                                                   included under general observations: ‘She is encour-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                        aged to resume tasks of coordination and distribution
                                                                                   of work in the Pool which she has performed
                                                                                   efficiently in the past’;
—     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June
      2003 amending the antidumping measures imposed by
      Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned
      (scintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic              2.    include a reference in that report to her ‘capacity for
      of China (1);                                                                mobility and versatility’;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the            —     order the Council to pay the costs.
      costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested regulation the Council altered the nature of
antidumping duties on imports of dead-burned magnesia ori-              The applicant takes issue with the appointing authority's
ginating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a            refusal to delete one phrase and include another in her staff
partial interim review.                                                 report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 251/17
In support of her application, she relies inter alia on the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas:
                                                                         The applicant submitted his candidature for a vacant post as
                                                                         counsellor at the European Anti-Fraud Office. The applicant's
—    failure to have regard to the purpose of optional observa-          candidature for the post was rejected.
     tions in so far as the fact that she was being ‘encouraged
     to resume tasks of coordination and distribution of work
     in the Pool’ is in no way a justification of the assessment         In support of his action, the application claims that there has
     of ‘very good’ under the headings concerned;                        been a breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, an abuse
                                                                         of power and of procedure, a manifest error of assessment, a
                                                                         breach of essential procedural requirements in drawing up the
                                                                         vacancy notice, a breach of the principle of institutional impar-
—    inconsistency in the marks;
                                                                         tiality and of the principle that an institution must have regard
                                                                         to the welfare of its officials, a breach of Part 1, Point 2 of the
                                                                         Commission's Decision of 21 December 2000, a breach of
—    failure to have regard to the observations of the Reports           the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard,
     Committee;                                                          of the principle of equality of arms, of the principle of equality,
                                                                         of the principle that an institution must have regard to the
                                                                         welfare of its officials, of the principle that officials should
—    that she was the victim of harassment at her workplace;             have reasonable career prospects and of the principle that
                                                                         a decision must contain a statement of reasons. Last, the
                                                                         applicant claims that the Director General of OLAF was not
—    that she had amply and undeniably demonstrated a                    competent to make a determination in respect of the
     capacity for mobility and versatility. It would therefore           complaint and to reject it.
     be in keeping with the Staff Regulations for that merit to
     be specifically referred to in the staff report at issue.
                                                                         Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                  (Case T-284/03)
                        (Case T-282/03)                                                             (2003/C 251/33)
                        (2003/C 251/32)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                         of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Aycinena, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien
of the European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Paul                     Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
Ceuninck, residing in Hertsberge (Belgium), represented by               lawyers.
G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      annul the decision of 26 March 2003 revising the appli-
                                                                                cant's classification on recruitment classifying her at the
—    annul the entire selection procedure following notice of                   first step of Grade LA 6;
     vacant post COM/051/02 and annul that notice;
                                                                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—    annul the decision to appoint another person taken by
     the appointing authority on 13 September 2002 and also,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     consequently, the decision rejecting the applicant's candi-
     dature for that post;                                               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons for decisions, manifest error of
                                                                         assessment, breach of the principle that officials should have
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                              reasonable career prospects (Article 5(3) of the Staff