CELEX: C2001/227/58
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-121/01: Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau against Commission of the European Communities

C 227/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against                   Lastly, the applicant also pleads that Article 39 of the Staff
                 the European Investment Bank                              Regulations is illegal, inasmuch as it allows a person to be
                                                                           relieved of his duties, and even provides for payment of that
                         (Case T-120/01)                                   person’s salary to be stopped, for up to three months, without
                                                                           requiring the facts in issue to be communicated forthwith and
                                                                           at the same time.
                         (2001/C 227/57)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, p. 20.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi Isola,
avvocato.
                                                                           Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau against
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the letter of 6 March 2001 bearing reference
      RH/Ress/2001-483/TP and its enclosure;                                                        (Case T-121/01)
—     annul the letter of 22 May 2001;
                                                                                                    (2001/C 227/58)
—     annul Article 39 of the Staff Regulations;
—     annul all acts connected with or ensuing from the                                       (Language of the case: French)
      contested measures, or on which those measures are
      based;
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     rule and declare that the Code of Conduct is not applicable          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to the applicant;                                                    European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau,
                                                                           residing in Nantes, France, represented by Marguerite Faucon-
—     order the European Investment Bank to pay compen-                    net and Pierre Thielen, Avocats, with an address for service in
      sation for the physical, material and non-material damage            Luxembourg.
      suffered, in an amount to be determined during the
      course of the proceedings;                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
                                                                                 measures within a reasonable time following the appli-
                                                                                 cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  No 17;
                                                                           —     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the
In the present case, the applicant — who is also the applicant                   necessary measures within one month against the party
in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v                        complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant
European Investment Bank (EIB) — is contesting various                           to Regulation No 17;
measures which he regards as having been adopted with a
view to obstructing compliance with the judgment delivered                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
on 23 February 2001 in the abovementioned cases (1).
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations and the Code of
      Conduct, if and in so far as the latter is applicable,               The applicant states that on 23 March 1998 he lodged a
      inasmuch as the letter of 6 March 2001 introduces a new              complaint with the Commission of the European Communi-
      type of penalty which is not provided for. He claims, in             ties, arguing that the rules applied by Fédération International
      addition, that the enclosure to that letter lays down new            de Football Association (FIFA) to the activity of player’s agent
      rules which are different from and contrary to those                 were contrary to Community law, in particular Articles 49 EC
      provided for in the employment contract, in breach of                and 81 EC (COMP/37.124 Piau/FIFA). The Commission made
      the Charter of Human Rights and the principles of proper             a thorough investigation and on 19 October 1999 sent FIFA a
      conduct and contractual good faith.                                  statement of complaints. On 24 February 2000 the parties
                                                                           presented their views orally. On 31 January 2001 the applicant,
—     failure, as regards the letter from the President of the EIB         since he had not received any statement of position, called on
      — which suspended the applicant from all duties with                 the Commission to respond. To this day, almost three years
      immediate effect and prohibited him from entering his                after the complaint was made, the Commission has not taken
      office — to comply with the obligation to communicate                a clear, explicit position on the problem submitted to it by the
      in advance the facts in issue.                                       applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/31
The applicant considers that the Commission’s inaction is                                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
contrary to the Treaty and to Regulation No 17, since it is                                                of Regulation No 40/94;
allowing an infringement of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to                                             — Failure to take account of the
continue, although it has all the evidence available to adopt                                              services actually being offered;
the necessary measures.
                                                                                                       — Failure to take account of the
                                                                                                           existing registrations of the
                                                                                                           sign in Germany and France.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-122/01)
                                                                         Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 227/59)
                                                                                                  (Case T-124/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 227/60)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                      (Language of the case: French)
4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc., Minnesota (U.S.A.),
represented by Sabine Rojahn, Rechtsanwältin, with an address            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for service in Luxembourg.                                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              domiciled in London, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                         Laure Levi and Dugois Dominique, Lawyers.
—     set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      21 March 2001 in Case R 44/2000-3;
                                                                         —     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 5 April 2000
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.                 refusing to apply the United Kingdom weighting to the
                                                                               applicant’s pension as from 8 May 1999 and, so far as
                                                                               necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of
                                                                               23 February 2001 dismissing the applicant’s claim of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                18 July 2000;
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to apply the United Kingdom
Trade mark for which           The pictorial mark ‘BEST BUY’ —                 weighting with retroactive effect from 8 May 1999;
Community registration         Application No 001166164
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay damage provisionally assessed
sought:
                                                                               ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euros and to pay interest at
                                                                               8 % per annum on the remainder of the pension owed as
Goods or services:             Services in Classes 35, 37 and 42               from 8 May 1999;
                               (including management con-
                               sultancy, installation of car stereo      —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               systems and products for the pri-
                               vate office, and specialist advice
                               on the fitting-out of retail busi-
                               nesses)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision disputed before       Refusal of registration by the            The applicant claims infringement of Article 82 of the Staff
the Board of Appeal:           examiner                                  Regulations. The applicant claims that the Commission did
                                                                         not properly evaluate the documentation he provided to prove
Pleas in law:                  — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)         his change of country of residence. The Commission should,
                                   of Regulation No 40/94 (1);           inter alia, have taken into consideration the particular situation