CELEX: C1999/048/58
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co and Others against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case T-176/98)

20.2.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/27
The applicant's fourth plea is that the treatment reserved        Action brought on 7 December 1998 by Vasilios
to good-faith brand diversification advertising is                       Boukouvalas against the European Parliament
disproportionate. In view of the fact that advertising for                             (Case T-193/98)
tobacco products is granted a milder treatment, the
treatment of good-faith brand diversification advertising is                            (1999/C 48/59)
also discriminatory.
                                                                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
The applicant's fifth plea is that the advertising ban
enacted by the Directive infringes its right to freedom of
speech and in particular cannot be justified under                An action against the European Parliament was brought
Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Rights.                                                           Communities on 7 December 1998 by Vasilios
                                                                  Boukouvalas, an official of the European Parliament,
The applicant's sixth plea is that the Directive deprives         resident in Brussels, represented by Professor Kharis
holders of trade-mark rights of the substance of their            Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for
rights and thus infringes the fundamental rights to               service in Luxembourg at the Office of VeÂronique
property and of freedom of trade, as well as the Paris            Duhaubois, 139 Rue Schetzel, L-2518.
Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð find the action admissible;
Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Alma Media                   Ð hold to be unlawful and annul (a) the implied refusal
Group Advertising SA & Co and Others against the                      of the defendant's staff to pay, in respect of the
European Parliament and the Council of the European                   applicant's father and mother, the allowance for
                           Union                                      persons treated as if they were dependent children,
                                                                      during the period from 1 August 1997 to 31 July
                      (Case T-176/98)                                 1998, notwithstanding the decision of the
                       (1999/C 48/58)                                 Secretary-General of 28 January 1998 and (b)
                                                                      Decision No 26039 of 9 September 1998, of the
                                                                      defendant finding that the applicant is not entitled to
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      the above allowance;
An action against the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union was brought before the              Ð order the defendant to pay that allowance to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                applicant for the abovementioned period, together
23 October 1998 by Alma Media Group Advertising SA &                  with interest for late payment at 8 % from the date
Co and Others, represented by Helen Papaconstantinou,                 upon which each monthly payment became due;
Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.                                  Ð order the defendant to pay the applicant's legal costs,
                                                                      and to so order even if the action is dismissed, because
                                                                      there are exceptional circumstances within the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                           meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 87(3) of
                                                                      the Rules of Procedure, in particular circumstances of
Ð annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament                 personal impecuniosity, as set out in the main body of
    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                          the application.
    approximation of the laws, regulations and
    administrative provisions of the Member States
    relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    products published (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9), and
                                                                  Infringement of Article 90 of the Staff
Ð order the European Parliament and the Council of the            Regulations and of the principles of the
    European Union to pay the costs.                              protection of legitimate expectations and of
                                                                  proper administration
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                  According to the applicant, any favourable reply by the
The grounds of the present application and its main               appointing authority to an official's administrative
arguments are those raised in Case T-172/98 Salamander            complaint must be binding on that body and, in any
v. Parliament and Council.                                        event, the subsequent revocation or amendment of the
                                                                  reply cannot retroactively deprive the official of the rights
                                                                  which flowed from it.