CELEX: C2003/171/64
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-162/03: Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot against the Commission of the European Communities

C 171/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order the Commission to make good the damage suffered               —     annul the decision of the Commission of 6 May 2002
       by it as a result of incomplete compliance with the                       definitively recruiting the applicant in Grade A 7 at step 3;
       judgment of the Court of 28 February 2002;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant took up his duties as a probationary official on
                                                                           1 August 2001 and was provisionally recruited at step 1 in
                                                                           grade A 7. The applicant made a request for recruitment at a
                                                                           higher grade. That request was refused.
The applicant has brought this action seeking a declaration
that the Commission is liable for failing to comply entirely
with the judgment of the Court ( 1) reducing the amount of the             In support of his application the applicant submits that there
fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission in decision                was a breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations in so far
94/601/CE (Plasterboard), relating to a proceeding pursuant to             as the Commission did not take account of the specific
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833-Plasterboard) ( 2).               requirements of the service. The applicant also submits that
                                                                           there was a manifest error of assessment.
In the applicant’s view, the Commission should still pay the
interests due on the difference between the sum paid and the
amount of the fine finally fixed by the Court of First Instance
together with the costs, agreed by common accord of the
parties at EUR 50 000. The defendant incurs non-contractual
liability for the damage arising therefrom.                                Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A.
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
( 1) Case T-308/94 Cascades SA v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
( 2) OJ 1991 L 243, p. 1.
                                                                                                     (Case T-169/03)
                                                                                                     (2003/C 171/65)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot against                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
        the Commission of the European Communities                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           12 May 2003 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A., represented by Alessandro
                                                                           Ruo, lawyer.
                          (Case T-162/03)
                                                                           Sissi Rossi s.r.l. was also a party to the proceedings before the
                          (2003/C 171/64)                                  Board of Appeal.
                    (Language of the case: French)                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between
                                                                                 the trade marks in question with regard to all the goods
                                                                                 referred to and annul the contested decision at issue; in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the alternative, declare that the trade marks are inconsist-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     ent with each other so far as concerns ‘ladies’ bags’ and
Communities on 30 April 2003 by Pascal Millot, residing in                       ‘ladies’ shoes’ and declare that there is an affinity between
Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen,                       such goods;
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.