CELEX: C2000/135/26
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-27/00: Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli against the European Central Bank

13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law relied on:        — Infringement of Article 7(1)
                                                                                                           (b) and (c) of Regulation
The applicants state that, in its judgment of 30 September                                                 No 40/94;
1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court of Justice,                                            — VITALITE has already been
the Court of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Court                                            accepted in 15 European
of Justice rejecting the applicants’ requests for the entry of                                             countries;
their names on the list of persons having manifested their                                              — the contested decision also
interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their                                              infringes first Council Direc-
service, as provided for by Council Regulation No 2688/95 of                                               tive     No. 89/104/EEC     of
17 November 1995 introducing special measures to terminate                                                 21 December       1988      to
the service of officials of the European Communities as a result                                           approximate the laws of the
of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.                                                           Member States relating to tra-
                                                                                                           de marks.
However, in the decision contested in the present case, the
administrative authority of the Court of Justice refused to take
any steps to comply with the said judgement, contrary to
Article 233 EC.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Com-
                                                                         mittee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priese-
                                                                         mann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli
Action brought on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                                     against the European Central Bank
Corporation, a company registered in the USA, against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                                  (Case T-27/00)
                              (OHIM)
                          (Case T-24/00)                                                         (2000/C 135/26)
                         (2000/C 135/25)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: English)                       An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Committee of the European
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and
European Communities on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                  Maria Concetta Cerafogli, represented by Norbert Pflüger,
Corporation, represented by Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,                 Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, with an address for
Bolte & Partner, Widenmayerstrasse 48, Munich, Germany.                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloys Schiltz, c/o
                                                                         Association Luxembourgeoise des Employées des Banque et
                                                                         d’Assurance a.s.b.l, 29, avenue Monterey.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Decision R 137/1999-2 of 6 December 1999 in so                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    far as the said decision dismissed the applicant’s appeal;
                                                                         — order the defendant to cease and desist from deriving the
— order the defendant to bear the costs.                                     rights or obligations of its staff from Administrative
                                                                             Circular 11/98 concerning ECB Internet usage policy,
                                                                             dated 12 November 1998 (the ‘Administrative Circular’);
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                         — order the defendant to withdraw the Administrative Circu-
Trade mark concerned:           VITALITE                                     lar and inform in writing the staff of the ECB about this
                                                                             withdrawal;
Product of service:             Goods in international classes 5,
                                29 and 32 of the Nice Classifi-          — order the defendant to cease and desist from adopting
                                cation                                       rules addressed to its staff as a collective and intended to
                                                                             govern the behaviour thereof without these rules being
Decision contested be-          Rejection of registration by the             consulted with the Staff Committee, as demanded by
fore the Board of Ap-           Examination Division                         Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of
peal:                                                                        the European Central Bank (‘CoE’);
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.5.2000
— confirm that the Administrative Circular is null and void              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    due to violation of the rights of the Staff Committee, as set
    out in Art. 46 CoE;                                                  — annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 1999
                                                                              concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 14 of Council
— order the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings, in                    Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case IV/M.1610 — Deut-
    particular the costs of legal representation necessary for                sche Post/trans-o-flex) and cancel the fines imposed
    the applicants, such costs to be fixed and ordered for                    thereby;
    payment by the Court.
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings
                                                                              which the applicant has incurred;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the defendant, in the event that the applicant is
                                                                              successful, to reimburse to the latter the costs of the bank
                                                                              guarantee provided by the applicant by way of security for
The applicants are the Staff Committee of the ECB and three                   the payment of the fines.
members of this committee. They seek the comprehensive
withdrawal and annulment of the ECB’s administrative circular
endorsing an internet usage policy for its staff members.                Pleas in law and principal arguments
In support of its case, the applicants mainly put forward the            In the contested decision, the Commission alleges that the
following pleas in law:                                                  applicant deliberately supplied incorrect and misleading infor-
                                                                         mation concerning the acquisition of control over trans-o-flex
                                                                         Schnell-Lieferdienste GmbH in the notification given by it in a
— By adopting the contested circular, the defendant infringed            proceeding pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 in
    the Staff Committee’s right to consultation as laid down in          Case IV/M.1447 Deutsche Post/trans-o-flex. In addition, the
    Article 46 and 45 of the Conditions of Employment for                applicant allegedly supplied deliberately incorrect information
    Staff of the ECB (CoE). The circular laid down rules and             in response to several requests for information made by the
    regulations concerning working conditions of the staff, as           Commission. For that reason, a fine of EUR 50 000 has been
    related to in Article 45 CoE, and could thereof not be               imposed on the applicant on the basis of Article 14(1)(b) and
    adopted without prior consultation of the staff committee.           (c) of that regulation.
— Moreover, the circular provides for monitoring the staff’s             The applicant contests the decision on the grounds that the
    internet usage. This potentially endangers the right of              defendant applied a legally untenable interpretation to Article
    personality of the individual employees. A prior consul-             14(1)(b) and the first alternative in Article 14(1)(c). In addition,
    tation of the Committee was thereof necessary to safeguard           the Commission failed to exercise its discretion properly. The
    the staffs’ individual rights.                                       information supplied by the applicant was neither incorrect
                                                                         nor misleading, either as regards the notification of the
                                                                         proposed merger or as regards the answers given in response
                                                                         to the request for information.
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche Post
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-                       Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG
                                ties                                     against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                       Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-29/00)
                                                                                                   (Case T-30/00)
                        (2000/C 135/27)                                                           (2000/C 135/28)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche                     16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG, of Düsseldorf (Germany),
Post AG, of Bonn (Federal Republic of Germany), represented              represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian Oster-
by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, of Meerbusch, with an               rieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Clifford Chance Pünder, Düssel-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch.