CELEX: C2000/233/60
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-146/00: Action brought on 30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf and Martin Stier against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

C 233/32              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Ms Jutta Hotzel-                       Action brought on 30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf and Martin
Wagenknecht against the Commission of the European                      Stier against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                         Communities                                                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-145/00)                                                         (Case T-146/00)
                        (2000/C 233/59)                                                         (2000/C 233/60)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
European Comunities on 25 May 2000, by Ms Jutta Hotzel-                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Wagenknecht, Alfaz del Pi, Alicante, Spain, represented by Mr           30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf, of Ettingen (Germany), and
Becker of Rechtsanwälte Stöcker, Begrich, Bömkes, Becker und            Martin Stier, of Pfinztal (Germany), represented by Alexander
Steffen, Herne, Germany.                                                Gaul, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Spitz, Klinger & Partner,
                                                                        Rechtsanwälte, of Munich (Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 May 1999 and
      the decision on the complaint of 18 February 2000;                —     annul the decision adopted on 28 March 2000 by the
                                                                              First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant a full widow’s
      pension backdated to 1 June 1999;
                                                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                              (Trade Marks and Designs) to accord the filing date of
—     order the Commision to pay the costs.                                   15 April 1996 to application No 227306 for a Commu-
                                                                              nity trade mark;
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is the widow of a former official of the ECSC.            Pleas in law and main arguments
She was receiving a widow’s pension in the amount of 35 %
of her late husband’s final basic salary — he died in 1995. The
contested decision reduced the pension to 25 % of final salary.         The trade mark concer-        pictorial mark ‘DAKOTA’ —
The Commission based that decision on Article 81a of the                ned:                          application No 227306
Staff Regulations which was inserted by Article 9 of Council
Regulation No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985 (1).
                                                                        Goods or service concer-      Class 25 goods (articles of clo-
                                                                        ned:                          thing)
The applicant claims that that regulation does not apply to
pensions claims arising prior to 27 September 1985. In                  Decision contested befo-      reinstate the application as pre-
addition the applicant’s original pension claim has become              re the Board of Appeal:       viously constituted
unchallengable.                                                                                       Refusal by the examiner to
                                                                        Grounds of claim:
                                                                                                      — incorrect
                                                                                                          cles 78 andapplication
                                                                                                                       27 of Regulation
                                                                                                                                 of Arti-
                                                                                                          (EC) No 40/94
(1) Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of                                             — infringement by the Office of
    27 September 1985 amending the Staff Regulations of officials                                         its obligation to provide an
    and the conditions of employment of other servants of the                                             explanation
    European Communities (OJ 1985 L 265, p. 1).