CELEX: C1999/246/75
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-135/99: Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

28.8.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 246/37
Action brought on 2 June 1999 by Anna Posnanteck née                      The applicant also considers that she is entitled to an orphan’s
  Skrzypek v Commission of the European Communities                       pension and alleges infringement of the third paragraph of
                                                                          Article 80 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 21 of Annex
                                                                          VII thereto. The applicant refers to the separate legal status of
                         (Case T-134/99)                                  the dependent child allowance and the orphan’s pension, the
                                                                          former being a supplementary allowance in the nature of
                         (1999/C 246/74)                                  remuneration and the latter a contributory benefit linked with
                                                                          the pension scheme allowing people not in receipt of the
                                                                          dependent child allowance at the time of the official’s death to
                                                                          obtain an orphan’s pension.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          As regards a widow’s right to receive a dependent child
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 allowance, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 81 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 2 June             the Staff Regulations.
1999 by Anna Posnanteck née Skrzypek, a widow, residing in
Brussels, represented by Eric Causin and Isabel Jiménez Rojas,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the chambers of Daniel Phong, 222A Avenue Gaston
Diderich.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &
                                                                          Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
— annul the decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant
     family allowances and an orphan’s pension with retroactive
     effect for the applicant herself and for her child Mira                                        (Case T-135/99)
     Posnanteck;
                                                                                                    (1999/C 246/75)
— declare, inter alia, that her child Mira is entitled to an
     orphan’s pension with effect from July 1998, together
     with default interest;                                                                   (Language of the case: German)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   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 1
                                                                          June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,
                                                                          Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
The applicant, the widow of a former official, contests the               Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
appointing authority’s refusal to grant her and her child family
allowances and an orphan’s pension. That decision is based on
Articles 67, 80 and 81 of the Staff Regulations, all of which             The applicant claims that the Court should:
include as a basic precondition for entitlement to orphan’s
benefits the existence of a child recognised as being dependent           1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and
on the official, a condition not fulfilled in the present case.               order the defendant:
                                                                              (a) to permit registration of Community trade mark
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first, infringe-                  application No 404053 in respect of all provisions of
ment of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1                      services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration
and 2(2) and (3) of Annex VII thereto. As regards the                              is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);
household allowance, she contends that Article 1(1)(a) of                          and
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations imposes no requirement
that a married official should live under the same roof as his                (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.
spouse, so that the applicant’s spouse was entitled to receive
the household allowance both during his employment and                    2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute
when he received an invalidity pension. Since the latter was                  and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
not paid to him in his lifetime, the appointing authority should              procedure before the Board of Appeal.
have decided to pay his entitlement to his beneficiaries. As
regards the dependent child allowance, the applicant claims
that it is contrary to the Staff Regulations for the appointing           Pleas in law and main arguments
authority to impose as a precondition for recognition of her
daughter as a dependent child of the official the requirement             Trade mark:                     Word ‘Cine Action’ — Appli-
that proof be produced that he actually maintained her. In her                                            cation No 404053
view, that provision leaves no margin of latitude: the legislature
wished that entitlement to be granted as of right, that is to say         Goods or services:              ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,
automatically, when there are minor children.                                                             41, 42’
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/38                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
Decision           contested    Refusal of registration by the             Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of             examiner                                   before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:                                                                    Appeal:
Grounds for action:             — Infringement          of    Article      Grounds for action:           — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                    7(1)(b)of Regulation (EC) No                                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                    40/94                                                                — Misapplication of Article
                                — Misapplication of Article                                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
                                    7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                                            40/94.
                                    40/94.
Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &                        Action brought on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   Paramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                  pean Communities
                          (Case T-136/99)                                                          (Case T-137/99)
                          (1999/C 246/76)                                                          (1999/C 246/77)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered                      European Communities on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,                Paramo and 33 Others, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and                    Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of Roger Fry, the head of unit DG IX,
1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and                     sent to the applicants on 23 March 1999 and giving them
    order the defendant:                                                       notice of the termination of their contracts as of 30 June
                                                                               1999, and declare void the expiry date of 30 June 1999
    (a) to permit registration of Community trade mark                         fixed for each applicant’s contract;
         application No 400481 in respect of all provisions of
         services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration          — annul, in so far as is necessary, the legal characterisation of
         is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);                the applicants’ contracts, in that each applicant’s contract
         and                                                                   is in fact a renewal for an unlimited period of a contract
                                                                               awarded under Article 2(a) of the conditions of employ-
    (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.                                ment of other servants (hereinafter ‘the conditions’);
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
    procedure before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicants, who have already brought an action for the
Trade mark:                     Word ‘Cine Comedy’ — Appli-                annulment of the procedures and tests for the internal
                                cation No 404053                           competitions COM/T/A/2/98 and COM/T/B/2/98 (1), now chal-
                                                                           lenge the termination on 30 June 1999 of their contracts as
Goods or services:              ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,      temporary staff, notified to them by letter of the head of unit
                                41, 42’                                    DG IX of 23 March 1999.