CELEX: C1996/269/62
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Biscuiterie-Confiserie LOR and Confiserie du TECH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-114/96)

No C 269/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 9 . 96
— the Commission has manifestly misinterpreted the law in            — Appointment not in the interest of the service : The
    respect of Article 86 of the EC Treaty with the result that          applicant argues that, in disregard of Article 7 of the
    conclusions in paragraphs 30 to 37 of its decision were              Staff Regulations, the appointment of the successful
    defective .                                                          candidate did not satisfy the needs of the service but was
                                                                         decided purely for formal reasons and in the interest of
                                                                         the person concerned . After her promotion, the
                                                                         candidate appointed retained the same functions she had
                                                                         previously performed at grade A 3 , which did not
                                                                         correspond to the vacancy notice .
Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Seche
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 — Sex discrimination : The lack of reasons stated for the
                       ( Case T-l 12/96 )                                decision invites the suspicion that one of the
                         ( 96/C 269/61                                   Commission's reasons was a purely sexual preference ,
                                                                         prohibited by the principle of equal treatment between
                                                                         male and female workers .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                     — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        applicant maintains that he was discriminated against by
Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 1996 by                  reason of his nationality, age and sex.
Jean-Claude Seche, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar , with an address for service in       — Misuse of powers and abuse of process : The
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort               appointment of the successful candidate was not
Rheinsheim .                                                             motivated in any way by the interest of the service , but
                                                                         was made firstly in the interests of the person concerned
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             and , secondly, in order to achieve the doubling of the
                                                                         number of women at A 2 level in the Commission in
— annul the Commission 's decision appointing the                        1996 .
    successful candidate on 22 May 1996 to the post of
    Principal Legal Adviser, grade A 2 , in the Legal                — Infringement of the obligation to have due regard to the
    Service ,                                                            interests of officials .
— annul the decision, implicit in the contested decision
    referred to above , not to appoint the applicant to fill the     — Breach of good faith and the principle of the protection
    post of Principal Legal Adviser in the Legal Service ,               of legitimate expectations : The applicant maintains that
                                                                         he was in a situation in which the Community
— as the legal consequence of the annulment of the above                 administration had given him reasonable grounds to
    decisions, order the Commission to amend the                         expect that he would be promoted to grade A 2 .
    applicant's career bracket with effect from 1 June
    1996 ,                                                           As regards the claim for damages, the applicant argues that
                                                                     the decisions he seeks to have annulled , and which are
— order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in                 clearly in breach of duty having regard to their
    symbolic compensation for non-material damage,                   unlawfulness, have caused him significant non-material
                                                                     damage for which the Commission must make
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            compensation .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant makes the following arguments tn support of
his action :
— Lack of comparative examination of the merits : The
    applicant questions whether the candidates ' merits were
    objectively compared before the decisions were made,             Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Biscuiterie-Confiserie
    and adds that the procedure followed offered no                  LOR and Confiserie du TECH against the Commission of
    guarantees that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                           the European Communities
    the principle of equal treatment were complied with . He                                 ( Case T-l 14/96 )
    considers, moreover, that comparison of the merits                                         ( 96/C 269/62 )
    could not have led the Commission to prefer the
    successful person 's candidature to his own .
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
— Failure to state reasons : The applicant maintains that the
    Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff
    Regulations, in that no reasons are stated in the                An action against the Commission of the European
    contested decisions .                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 269/29
Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 1996 by                question was decided on following the procedure laid down
Biscuiterie-Confiserie LOR whose registered office is at               in Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 , in
Perpignan ( France ) and Confiserie du TECH whose                      which other parties do not have the opportunity to make
registered office is at Cabestany ( France ), represented by           their views known . Consequently, the decision was not
Nicolas Boespflug, of the Paris Bar .                                  taken with full knowledge of the facts, since the applicants
                                                                       were not able to put forward their arguments .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of
      12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical
      indications and designations of origin under the
      procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation          Action brought on 29 July 1996 by X against the European
                                                                                                    Parliament
      ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 in so far as it registered the names
      'Turron de Jijona ' and 'Turron de Alicante ' as protected                               ( Case T-l 19/96 )
      geographical indications,                                                                  ( 96/C 269/63 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 29 July 1996 by X, represented by
The applicant companies, which have for many years                     Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel of
manufactured 'tourons ' in France under the names ' touron             the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Jijona' and ' touron Alicante ', claim that the contested              at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener.
measure was adopted in breach of Article 3 of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 of 14 July 1992 on the                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which
provides that names that have become generic may not be                — annul the decision of the appointing authority to treat
registered ; a generic name is the name of an agricultural                  the applicant's absences between March and October
product or a foodstuff which , although it relates to the place             1995 as unauthorized, to deduct them from his days of
or the region where this product was originaly produced or                  annual leave and , when his leave was used up, to deduct
marketed , has become the common name of an agricultural                    an amount equivalent to the remuneration to which he is
                                                                            entitled,
product or a foodstuff.
                                                                       — annul the decision of 18 April 1996 of the
 In their view, the names 'Jijona ' and ' Alicante' used to                 Secretary-General of the European Parliament expressly
describe 'tourons ' are unquestionably generic .                            rejecting his complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
The applicants state that in the Roussillon the manufacture
 of 'tourons ' is traditional , in particular a hard and a soft
 'touron' called 'Alicante' and 'Jijona ' respectively , after the      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 names of the towns where they originated ; consequently, in
 the minds of French consumers those names, when they are
 used to describe 'tourons', are not connected to the Spanish           The applicant, an official in grade C 3 of the European
 towns of those names . The applicants point out that even in           Parliament who, according to the contested decision, has
 Spain the names 'Jijona ' and ' Alicante' are used as synonyms         been absent from work without permission, challenges that
 for ' soft' and ' hard ' to designate ' types' and 'varieties' of      finding of the appointing authority, its deduction of the
 'turron ', whatever the origin of the 'turron ' in question ; they     alleged absences from his days of leave and , when they were
 also note that ' turrones ' have been marketed under the               used up, its deduction of an amount equivalent to the
                                                                        remuneration to which he is entitled .
 names 'Jijona ' and 'Alicante' by many major Spanish
 ' turron ' manufacturers established in towns other than
 Jijona and Alicante . The applicants add that in legal                 He claims, inter alia, that the allegedly unauthorized
 proceedings in France the names in question have been                  absences which are the subject-matter of the contested
 found to be generic .                                                  decision , are justified on medical grounds and that in any
                                                                        event his immediate superiors were informed of the reasons
                                                                        for his absence . Moreover, he asserts that the medical
 Furthermore , the applicants consider that there are                   certificate drawn up by his doctor provides justification for
 particular grounds for annulment of the contested                      most of the absences at issue . The European Parliament has
 Regulation on the point in dispute in that the registration in         none the less treated those absences as unauthorized ,