CELEX: C2001/028/51
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-355/00: Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 28/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.1.2001
In support of his application the applicant alleges that:                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     there is nothing in the Act of 20 September 1976 or in             —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament                        Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      permitting the Member States to terminate, for national                  Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in Case
      reasons, the term of office of an MEP, other than in cases               R 142/2000-3,
      of incompatibilities arising during the term of office,
      which is not the case here;                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                               (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
—     such a measure is all the more contrary to the principles
      of Community law inasmuch as it is the result of an
      entirely national decision, which cannot by itself be the          Pleas in law and main arguments
      basis for a Community decision;
                                                                         Mark:                         Word mark ‘TELE AID’ — Appli-
—     there is a general legal principle based on the generally                                        cation No 469 957
      applicable rules of law of the Member States which means
      that termination must be decided by the parliamentary              Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 12,
      assembly concerned itself;                                                                       9, 37, 38, 39 and 42 (including
                                                                                                       motor vehicles, motor vehicle
—     the substantive procedural rules have been disregarded in                                        repair, equipment for the trans-
      the present case inasmuch as the Legal Affairs Committee                                         mission of speech and data, emer-
      was not convened and the applicant was not given a                                               gency call systems for motor
      hearing by that committee;                                                                       vehicles, breakdown assistance,
                                                                                                       rescue services)
—     in the contested measure, the President of the European            Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
      Parliament purportedly spoke on behalf of the Parliament           beforethe     Board of
      when she did not have the authority to do so.                      Appeal:
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of                                                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
parliamentary immunity and legal certainty.
                                                                                                       — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                                           of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-                     Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-355/00)                                                          (Case T-356/00)
                         (2001/C 28/51)                                                           (2001/C 28/52)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, of Stuttgart
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart,                      (Germany), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of
Germany, represented by Stefan Völker of Gleiss Lutz Hootz               Messrs Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,
Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                              Germany.