CELEX: C2002/202/52
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-181/02: Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission of the European Communities

24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/31
—     order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 %            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      with effect from 26 January 1988, the date of the
      accident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73           —      annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for
      of the Staff Regulations;                                                 the year 2001;
—     make an order for damages in the amount of                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
      non-material damage which the contested decision caused
      to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
      to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and as
      equitable compensation for the non-material damage;                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, seeks the
                                                                         annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-
                                                                         siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
                                                                         performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal on
Following the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation to          factual allegations which the applicant contests and which will
giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that           impair his future career development.
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from total
                                                                         The applicant claims that, under the provisions on data
permanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.
                                                                         protection, the defendant is prohibited from relying on
                                                                         electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her            ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data.
to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73         Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that
of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result       it is based on incorrect factual information.
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of the
Medical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to be
regarded as accidental.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex
                                                                         GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission
Accordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendant                             of the European Communities
infringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore,                                  (Case T-181/02)
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.
                                                                                                  (2002/C 202/52)
                                                                                           (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   the European Central Bank                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June
                                                                         2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
                         (Case T-179/02)                                 Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 202/51)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         —      Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
                                                                                12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                         Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Lautex GmbH in liquidation;
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer.                                                                  —      Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/32                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.8.2002
Pleas and main arguments                                                  Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon
                                                                          Tsetis Farmakeftika Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhaniki
                                                                          kai Emboriki Eteria against Office for the Harmonization
                                                                           in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the
Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a
                                                                                                   (Case T-182/02)
group said to comprise Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation
and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH aid amounting in total to
EUR 7 834 million.                                                                                 (2002/C 202/53)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the Commission was incorrect in its
finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH constituted a
unit or group of undertakings and that therefore the ability to           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
approve rescue and restructuring aid could only be assessed in            Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
favour of the group, that the Deggendorf doctrine was to be               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
applied and the aid was to be claimed back from both members              10 June 2002 by Uni-Pharma — Kleon Tsetis Farmakeftika
of the group. The Commission’s Decision is said to be based               Ergastiria Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emboriki Eteria, whose
on the erroneous finding that the applicant’s case did not                registered office is in Kato Kifissia, Attiki (Greece), represented
constitute a residual arrangement under the terms of the                  by Eleni Gioti-Manthou and Maria Bra.
exception provided for in footnote 10 of the Guidelines (1). By
not applying that exceptional provision the Commission
infringed the principle of equal treatment and provided no                The applicant claims that the Court should:
objective reason for the unequal treatment.
                                                                          —     find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the
                                                                                marks in question;
The applicant maintains that the Commission’s finding that                —     annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of
the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH were to be deemed to                         Appeal of 27 February 2002;
constitute a group was erroneous since the applicant is
controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by the liquidator. In              —     order the Office to pay the costs of all the proceedings,
consequence of the erroneous assumptions made by the                            including lawyers’ fees incurred by the applicant.
Commission the contested decision was already unlawful and
liable to be set aside for breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in
conjunction with the Guidelines.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In the alternative the applicant maintains that the Commission
                                                                          Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
wrongly classified the relevant measure as aid or, in the
                                                                          munity trade mark:
alternative, assumed a level of aid intensity greater than was
the case. In addition, in finding that the decision of 1999 to            The Community trade            Word mark ‘Apotel’ in respect of
claim repayment of aid concerning Erba Lautex GmbH had                    mark concerned:                certain goods in Class 5 (anal-
not been complied with, the Commission manifestly erred in                                               gesics and antipyretics) — appli-
its findings of facts in that regard.                                                                    cation No 613554
                                                                          Proprietor of the right to     Biofarma (previously Orsem)
                                                                          the trade mark or sign
Furthermore, the applicant is claiming that the Commission
                                                                          asserted by way of oppo-
committed errors of assessment and infringed essential formal
                                                                          sition in the opposition
requirements. It infringed the duty to provide a statement of
                                                                          proceedings:
reasons and the Federal Government’s right to be heard.
Finally, the Commission misused its discretion in adopting the            Trade mark or sign             National and international word
contested decision and infringed the right to administration in           asserted by way of oppo-       mark ‘Aportex’ in respect of cer-
accordance with the rules.                                                sition in the opposition       tain goods in Class 5 (pharmaceu-
                                                                          proceedings:                   tical products for the prevention
                                                                                                         and/or treatment of the meno-
(1) Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring                                     pause)
    firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of entire opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Appeal:                        Opposition Division