CELEX: C1998/397/65
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-19 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 October 1998 by José Cuenda Guijarro and Others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-179/98)

19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 397/33
by Dr Rolf Wägenbaur, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  infringement of the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                grade-related aspects of intelectual property rights).
Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                    (1) Case T-175/98 Una Film GmbH v. Parliament and Council.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
1. annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament
    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                        Action brought on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
    approximation of the laws, regulations and                      Guijarro and Others against the Council of the European
    administrative provisions of the Member States                                               Union
    relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco                                  (Case T-179/98)
    products (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9), at least in so far
    as it prohibits or hinders sponsorship and advertising                                   (98/C 397/65)
    in respect of marks which were also used in
    advertising for products other than tobacco products
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
    before 30 July 1998;
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2. order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                    Communities on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
                                                                    Guijarro, Eva Hellgren, Petri Samuli Laaksonen, Hans
                                                                    Lund, Daniel Marlier, Maria Augusta Santos, Agneta
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Sederowsky, NoeÂ Youssouroum and Jacqueline Willems,
                                                                    all residing in Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis
                                                                    and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
The applicants are companies incorporated under Swiss               Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessante.
law. The first applicant is the owner of the rights to the
Davidoff' trade mark outside the tobacco sector and
awards licences workwide for diversification products               The applicants claim that the Court should:
under the Davidoff' and associated marks. The second
applicant is the owner of the rights to the Davidoff' mark
with respect to tobacco products, including smokers'                Ð annul the Council's decision of 12 January 1998;
articles such as lighters etc.
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
While originally only tobacco products were marketed
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
under the Davidoff' mark, now a variety of diversification
products, generally produced under licence, such as
cosmetics, spirits, leather goods, ties, watches, spectacles        The applicants, who are officials of the Council of the
etc. are also marketed under that mark. In the applicants'          European Union, noted faults, omissions, poor
submission, there is a significant difference between the           workmanship and defects affecting the Justus Lipsius
advertisements for tobacco and those for the other                  Building where they work.
diversification products, and the latter do not give rise to
any associations with Davidoff' tobacco products.
                                                                    After taking numerous informal steps, they made a formal
                                                                    request for:
The applicants submit that they rely on the licences
continuing to be able to advertise the licensed products, in        Ð the appointment of an expert, chosen by agreement
order to be able to ensure the continued existence of the                with the representatives of the staff, and instructed,
Davidoff' diversification products and the jobs associated              after having access to all documents relating to the
therewith.                                                               Justus Lipsius Building, to report all faults and
                                                                         deficiencies affecting the building and jeopardising the
                                                                         safety of staff and visitors, indicate the appropriate
                                                                         remedial work and check the proper performance of
As regards the law, the applicants rely on similar                       that work;
arguments to those which have already been put forward
in Case T-175/98 (1). As additional pleas in law, however,
they also put forward misuse of discretion, breach of other         Ð an undertaking to carry out or have carried out all the
fundamental rights (freedom of the press, right to one's                 work specified by the above expert with a view to
name as an emanation of the right of personality, right to               bringing the building into proper state in accordance
equal treatment, freedom to carry on a profession) and                   with the expert's report;
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/34             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
Ð the putting in order, without delay, of the Justus                     corresponding to two thirds of the installation
    Lipsius Building so that it conforms with the                        allowance paid upon her entry into service;
    requirements of the Community and Belgian laws and
    regulations;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð the adoption of effective information and training                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    measures for staff with respect to safety.
                                                                    On 1 April 1997 the applicant entered in the service of
That request was expressly rejected by a decision of                CEDEFOP, pursuant to a contract of two years' duration,
12 January 1998.                                                    as a member of its temporary staff, in order to work as a
                                                                    grade C 5 secretary. She was paid an installation
The applicant point out that the Council is obliged, as             allowance pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Conditions of
employer, to guarantee the safety, health and quality of            employment of other servants of the European
environment of its officials at their place of work.                Communities.
In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single         By letter of 28 January 1998, the Commission offered her
plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and                a position as a typist in DG XI. Having accepted that
assistance, infringement of the building regulations of the         offer, the applicant gave to the defendant, by note dated
Brussels conurbation, infringement of the rules on safety,          31 January 1998, notice of her intention to terminate her
protection of health and quality of the environment at              employment, in accordance with Article 8 of her contract.
places of work, and manifest error of assessment.                   The two-month period covered by that notice commenced
                                                                    on 1 February 1998 and ended on 31 March 1998. The
                                                                    applicant took up her duties in DG XI on 1 April 1998.
                                                                    In support of her case, the applicant maintains that she
                                                                    has worked without interruption in the service of the
                                                                    Communities since 1 April 1997. She claims that, by
                                                                    deciding to proceed to recover two thirds of the
Action brought on 30 October 1998 by Elizabeth Cotrim               installation allowance paid upon her entry into service, the
against the European Centre for Development of                      defendant has infringed Article 5(5) of Annex VII of the
              Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)                         Staff Rergulations. In taking the view that, by moving
                      (Case T-180/98)                               from CEDEFOP to the Commission, the applicant had
                       (98/C 397/66)                                voluntarily left the service of the Communities, the
                                                                    defendant committed a manifest error of assessment,
               (Language of the case: French)                       having regard to its legal status and to the task assigned
                                                                    to it.
An action against the European Centre for Development
                                                                    The applicant considers that the retention by the
of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before
                                                                    Commission of two thirds of the installation allowance
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                    paid to her is contrarty to Article 85 of the Staff
on 30 October 1998 by Elizabeth Cotrim, residing at
                                                                    Regulations, having regard to the defendant's standard
Winkelse (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and
                                                                    practice, agreed with the Commission, of paying the
FrancËoise Permentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                    whole of the installation allowance to its staff upon their
for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                    recruitment.
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                    In the alternative, the applicant maintains that, according
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    to Article 5(5) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, the
                                                                    defendant has acted unlawfully in demanding
Ð annul CEDEFOP's decision of 9 March 1998 requiring                reimbursement of over half of the installation allowance
    the applicant to repay the sum of BEF 50 102,                   paid to her.