CELEX: C2003/239/37
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-250/03: Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities

4.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/19
Decision of the Oppo-         Partial admission of the oppo-              Pleas in law and main arguments
sition Division:              sition and allowance to proceed
                              to registration of the Community
                              trade mark for the following                The purpose of the present action is to challenge the legality
                              goods: cocoa, sugar and chewing             of the implied decision rejecting the complaint by the applicant
                              gum.                                        against her suspension from her duties following her removal
                                                                          from the post of Accounting Officer and Budget Execution
                                                                          Director in Directorate General Budget, and her transfer to the
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
Appeal:                       Société des Produits Nestlé.                position of Principal Adviser in Directorate General Personnel
                                                                          and Administration, as the result of a disciplinary procedure.
Pleas in law:                 According to the applicant there
                              is no likelihood of confusion               This application is based on the following elements:
                              between the two marks and it
                              refers in this respect to a judgment        —     Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulation, through
                              of the Superior Court of justice in               the adoption of a measure resulting in the applicant’s
                              Madrid that allegedly stated that                 suspension without adequate grounds therefore, in the
                              Menorquina was not entitled to                    absence of any breach of Articles 12, 21 or 60 of the
                              oppose the use of the word mark                   Staff Regulation.
                              ‘POLO’ in Spain.
                                                                          —     Breach of Article 88 of the Staff Regulation, in the
                                                                                absence of any serious misconduct that may justify the
                                                                                urgent need to exclude her from the working place.
                                                                          —     Breach of the principle of proportionality, in as much as
                                                                                the measure in question is to be qualified as dispro-
                                                                                portionnal in relation to the allegations made against her.
                                                                          —     Breach of the rights of defence, through the adoption of
Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen                               a suspension measure without ensuring the possibility of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            the applicant being heard and protecting her rights.
                       (Case T-250/03)
                       (2003/C 239/37)
                                                                          Action brought on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht GmbH
                  (Language of the case: English)                         + Co.KG & 9 others against the Commission of the
                                                                                              European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-251/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 239/38)
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Marta Andreasen,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by I. Forrester, QC.                                         (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting              European Communities on 2 July 2003 by Albert Albrecht
      the Applicant’s appeal against her suspension from her              GmbH + Co.KG, Aulendorf, Germany, AniMedica GmbH,
      duties;                                                             Senden-Bösensell, Germany, Ceva Tiergesundheit GmbH, Düs-
                                                                          seldorf, Germany, Fatro S.p.A., Bologna, Italy, Laboratorios
—     award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money                  Syva S.A., León, Spain, Laboratorios Virbac S.A., Barcelona,
      to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such           Spain, Química Farmacéutica Bayer S.A., Barcelona, Spain,
      other rate as may be fixed by the Court;                            Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda, Lisboa,
                                                                          Portugal, Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias S.A., Madrid,
                                                                          Spain, Virbac S.A., Carros, France, represented by D. Wael-
—     award her the costs of the present action.                          broeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers.