CELEX: C1998/026/17
Language: en
Date: 1998-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 28 November 1997 by David T. Keeling against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case T-297/97)

24.1.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 26/9
Action brought on 26 November 1997 by Dimitrios                    Action brought on 28 November 1997 by David T.
Coussios against the Commission of the European                    Keeling against the Office for Harmonization in the
                          Communities                                      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                       (Case T-295/97)                                                   (Case T-297/97)
                          (98/C 26/16)                                                     (98/C 26/17)
                                                                                 (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                   An action against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Communities on 28 November 1997 by David T. Keeling,
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, with an address
1997 by Dimitrios Coussios, resident in Brussels, Belgium,         for service in Luxembourg at the offices of ArseÁne
living temporarily in Athens, Greece, represented by               Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie-Adelaïde.
Georgios Sakellaropoulos of the Athens Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                   Ð annul Decision ADM-97-3 of the President of the
                                                                       Office of 21 February 1997 concerning the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            organization of the Boards of Appeal, as revised on
                                                                       27 February 1997, and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Ð find that the action for annulment of Decision                   Ð order the office to pay the costs of the action.
     No 5458/26.9.1997 (R/403/97) of the appointing
     authority is admissible,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð declare that the applicant is entitled to an invalidity          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     pension at a rate of 29 % (4 % + 25 %) payable from           those raised in Case T-148/97 (OJ C 199, 28.6.1997,
     1 December 1993,                                              p. 39). The present application, based on Article 179 of
                                                                   the EC Treaty, is being lodged as a precautionary measure,
                                                                   lest the action for annulment in Case T-148/97
Ð classify the applicant's case under Article 78 of the            commenced by the applicant pursuant to Article 173 of
     Staff Regulations, so that he receives an invalidity          the EC Treaty is declared inadmissible by the Court.
     pension equal in amount to the retirement pension to
     which he would have been entitled if he had been in
     service on reaching 65 years of age, that is to say 70 %
     of the basic salary,
                                                                   Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Pierre-Alexis
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   Feral against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                         (Case T-301/97)
                                                                                           (98/C 26/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
The contested decision is unlawful because the appointing
authority arbitrarily set the applicant's invalidity rate at       An action against the Committee of the Regions was
15,5 %, without the Medical Committee provided for                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
under the Staff Regulations having first given an opinion,         Communities on 2 December 1997 by Pierre-Alexis
when the rate applicable to him is in reality much higher.         Feral, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
                                                                   Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The statement of reasons for the contested decision is
faulty because it wrongly proceeds on the basis that
Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations pursue                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
different objectives when, as is acknowledged, application
of one of those articles does not affect application of the        Ð annul the decision of 2 September 1997 of the
other.                                                                 Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions
                                                                       refusing to pay the applicant daily allowances for a
                                                                       period of 10 months by virtue of his status as a
                                                                       probationer official,