CELEX: C2000/176/50
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-104/00: Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta against the Commission of the European Communities

C 176/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            represented by J. Stuyck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
— annul the two decisions of the Commission of 11 June                 Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
    1999 and 2 December 1999 transferring the applicant
    from the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    technical aspects’ unit to the ‘Food production and biotech-
    nology’ unit;                                                      — declare the action admissible and well founded;
— annul the appointment of another official to the ‘Foodstuffs         — annul the Commission Decision of 31 January 2000
    — Legislation and scientific and technical aspects’ unit;               reducing the amount referred to in Decision C (1994)
                                                                            3059 of 25 November 1994 approving the grant of
— order the European Commission to pay compensation for                     assistance through the European Union, European Social
    the material and non-material losses suffered;                          Fund, for an operational programme in Belgium (Flemish
                                                                            Community) under the Community support framework
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                           covered by Objective No 3;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests, in particular, the decision transferring       Pleas in law and main arguments
him, as deputy head of Unit III.E.1, to Unit III.E.2 within the
Industry Directorate.                                                  The applicant submits that the contested decision is based on
                                                                       an incorrect rejection of the lump-sum and result oriented
In support of his claims, the applicant maintains that:                financing which the applicant followed in compliance with the
                                                                       letter and spirit of the Community rules.
— the Commission has erred in its assessment of his abilities
    and of the situation existing within the unit;                     Moreover, the contested decision ignores the powers of the
                                                                       Member States to specify the method of financing products
— the Commission has infringed the rights of the defence,              within the Community in compliance with the Community
    since the contested decisions constituted, in reality, disci-      objectives.
    plinary measures;
— the appointment of another official to his former post was
    not in the interests of the service;
— insufficient reasons were given for the contested decisions;
— the Commission has misused its powers.                               Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                (Case T-104/00)
                                                                                                (2000/C 176/50)
Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds voor
de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap                                       (Language of the case: French)
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (Case T-102/00)                                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta,
                                                                       residing at Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by Chantal
                        (2000/C 176/49)                                Moreau, of the Brussels Bar, and Patrick Birden, of the
                                                                       Luxembourg Bar.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              — rule that the applicant is entitled to payment of the daily
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  subsistence allowance and to receive the second part of the
European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds                       installation allowance for his daughter upon his being
voor de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap,                   transferred to Brussels in January 1999.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision refusing payment to the applicant of the daily                  Trade Mark concerned:         ‘STREAMSERVE’ — Application
subsistence allowance and of the second part of an installation                                        No 198398.
allowance for his daughter upon his being transferred to
Brussels.                                                                Product or service:           Computer software and hardware
                                                                                                       (class numbers 9 and 16 of the
The applicant states in that regard that, having previously been                                       Nice classification).
transferred to Luxembourg, he was then required, in the
context of a new posting, once again to transfer his residence           Contested        Decision     Refusal of registration by the
and place of work to Brussels.                                           before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                         Appeal:
In support of his claims, he argues that he is in his view
entitled to request that he be paid the daily subsistence                Pleas in law relied on:       — Infringement of Article 7
allowance and an installation allowance, to which any unmar-                                               (1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No
ried official with an officially recognised dependent child is                                             40/94.
automatically entitled. As regards the installation allowance,
this is intended to compensate for the expenses and difficulties                                       — Breach of the principle of non-
occasioned by the need to move house and settle in to a new                                                discrimination.
residence.
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve North
America Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                         Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
                         (Case T-106/00)                                 Reino against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                        ties
                         (2000/C 176/51)
                                                                                                 (Case T-108/00)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 176/52)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve
North America Inc., represented by Magnus Nedstrand and Ulf                                 (Language of the case: French)
Willquist of the Swedish Bar.
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 contested decision in so far as the Court finds              European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
    that the trade mark STREAMSERVE does not satisfy the                 Reino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Louis Dupont,
    conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council           of the Brussels Bar, and Marc-Albert Lucas and Michel
    Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                  Franchimont, of the Liège Bar.
    Community Trade Mark and remit the case back to the
    Examiner;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as
    it constitutes a sufficiently apparent breach of the principle
    of non-discrimination and remit the case back to the                 — annul or declare illegal and/or defective the decisions,
    Examiner;                                                                failures to adopt measures required under the Staff Regu-
                                                                             lations or straightforward measures forming the subject-
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.                          matter of the proceedings;