CELEX: C2003/101/91
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-76/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)

C 101/52                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order the European Parliament to grant to the applicant
                                                                                 the resettlement allowance provided for under Article 6
                                                                                 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with retroactive
The present application is directed against a decision of the                    effect from 1 June 2002;
Commission of 20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation
Alsace to repay to it EUR 18 000 (principal sum) as a result of            —     order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the
its failure to fulfil subvention agreement PSS*/0534, concern-                   proceedings.
ing the organisation in Strasbourg of a conference from
29 June to 2 July 1992 entitled: ‘Quel avenir pour la
xénotransplantation et éthique et xénotransplantation’.
According to the Commission, the applicant failed to fulfil one            Pleas in law and main arguments
of its obligations, namely to provide scientific reports.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a former official of the European
                                                                           Parliament, was retired with entitlement to receive an invalidity
                                                                           pension as from 1 June 1999. On 31 May 2002 the applicant
In support of its claims, in addition to pleading lack of a                submitted to the defendant an application for the resettlement
statement of reasons, the applicant alleges:                               allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to the
                                                                           Staff Regulations, stating that he had, on the previous day,
—     expiry of time-limits to bring an action for restitution             definitively resettled in England. Following the defendant’s
      inasmuch as reimbursement of the subsidy in question is              rejection of that application, the applicant brought the present
      required more than 10 years after it was granted;                    action, invoking three pleas in law in support thereof:
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that            —     manifest error of assessment;
      the condition relating to distribution of scientific reports
      was met, having regard to the nationality and number of              —     breach of the provisions of the second subparagraph of
      participants at the conference who were all leading                        Article 6(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;
      specialists in the field with which the conference was
      concerned.                                                           —     infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister
                                                                           against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel                                                       (OHIM)
      Poveda Morillas against the European Parliament
                                                                                                     (Case T-76/03)
                           (Case T-69/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 101/91)
                          (2003/C 101/90)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                           of the European Communities on 28 February 2003 by
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               Herbert Meister, residing in Muchamiel (Spain), represented by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel Poveda Morillas, residing in
Folkestone (United Kingdom), represented by Patrick Goergen,
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 22 April 2002 of the President of
                                                                                 the Office transferring the applicant together with his
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      post as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs
                                                                                 with effect from 1 May 2002;
—     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 3 June
      2002 refusing to grant to the applicant the resettlement             —     order the applicant’s rights to be fully restored, which
      allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to                     means retransferring him and his post to his original
      the Staff Regulations;                                                     department, in its original structure;
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 101/53
—     order the defendant to make good the non-material                         ation allowance and, therefore, the other realted allow-
      damage suffered, evaluated provisionally at EUR 50 000,                   ances, in accordance with the Lozano case-law;
      subject to adjustment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward
Until 1 May 2002, the applicant, an official at the Office for            earlier in Case T-205/02 Salvador García v Commission (1),
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), held the post                Case T-298/02 Ana Herero Romeu v Commission (2) and
of Head of Service of the Cancellation Division. By the decision          T-299/02 Dedeu v Commission (2).
being contested in the present action, the applicant was
transferred as legal adviser to Vice-President for Legal Affairs.
In support of his claims for annulment, the applicant pleads:             (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14 September 2002, p. 22.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ C 289 of 23 November 2002, p. 38.
—     erroneous and inadequate statement of reasons for the
      decision of 22 April 2002;
—     breach of the principle of proportionality and of freedom
      of expression;
                                                                                  Removal from the register of Case T-305/01 (1)
—     infringement of the rights of defence, in particular the
      right to be heard;
                                                                                                    (2003/C 101/93)
—     breach of the principle of sound administration; and
                                                                                              (Language of the Case: French)
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials.
                                                                          By order of 29 January 2003 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-305/01: Thalassa Seafoods S.A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
Action brought on 3 March by Tomás Salazar Brier                          (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-83/03)
                         (2003/C 101/92)
                                                                                  Removal from the register of Case T-84/02 ( 1)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 101/94)
                                                                                              (Language of the Case: French)
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tomás Salazar Brier,
residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-Gallardo                By order of 30 January 2003 the President of the First Chamber
Gil-Fournier and Dolores Domínguez Pérez, Members of the                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Madrid and La Coruña Bars respectively.                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case T-84/02:
                                                                          Armand de Buck v Commission of the European Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—     declare invalid the decision of 24 February 2003, implicit
      in the Commission’s silence, refusing to grant an expatri-