CELEX: C2000/233/57
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-140/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Zapf Creation AG against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 233/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
Action brought on 24 May 2000 by Laurent Bal against                     —     that the Commission committed a manifest error of
       the Commission of the European Communities                              appraisal in relation to the length of time for which the
                                                                               level-B tasks were performed and that the duty to have
                                                                               regard for the welfare of officials was infringed;
                        (Case T-139/00)
                                                                         —     that the duty to provide reasons was not complied with.
                        (2000/C 233/56)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Zapf Creation AG
European Communities on 24 May 2000 by Laurent Bal, who                  against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
is resident in Walhain, Belgium, represented by Isabelle                               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Cooreman, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                                  (Case T-140/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                  (2000/C 233/57)
—     Annul the decision of the European Commission of
      28 January 2000;
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
—     Annul the internal competition procedure with reference
      No COM/7TB/99 for posts in grades B5 or B4:                        An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
In the alternative:                                                      25 May 2000 by Zapf Creation AG, Rödental/Coburg, Federal
                                                                         Republic of Germany, represented by Axel Kockläuner,
—     Order the Commission to pay him BEF 300 000 in                     Rechtsanwälte Meissner, Bolte & Partner, Munich.
      compensation for material and non-material damage;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In the further alternative (by way of an interlocutory ruling):
                                                                         —     annul decision R 348/1999-3 of the Third Board of
—     Allow him to bring evidence by all legal means that his                  Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
      tasks as a temporary member of staff were carried out in                 Market of 21 March 2000;
      the context of a B post and that his job as a temporary
      member of staff involved a level of tasks equivalent to            —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.
      level B;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In any event:
                                                                         Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘New Born Baby’ —
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs in accordance                                              application no. 650234
      with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.
                                                                         Goods or services:            Goods in class 28 (dolls for
                                                                                                       playing with and accessories for
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                        such dolls in the form of play-
                                                                                                       things)
                                                                                                       Refusal to register by the Exami-
The applicant claims that the Commission has infringed the               Decision contested befo-      ner
notice of competition and Article 5(1) of the Annex of the               re the Board of Appeal:
Staff Regulations. The Commission wrongly assumed that only
professional experience gained as a member of staff at grade B           Pleas in law relied on:       — Misapplication        of     Arti-
could be taken into account in order to be admitted to the                                                 cle 7(1)(b) of       Regulation
competition. The wording of the notice, however, is to be                                                  No 40/94
interpreted as meaning that the only relevant factor was the
actual level of the applicant’s experience.                                                            — Misapplication        of     Arti-
                                                                                                           cle 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                                           No 40/94
In support of his claims the applicant argues:                                                         — Infringment of the principle
                                                                                                           of the right to a hearing
—     that the Commission committed a manifest error of
      appraisal in relation to the level of experience acquired
      by performing level-B tasks;