CELEX: C2001/245/47
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-145/01: Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino against Commission of the European Communities

1.9.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 245/29
—      Lack of legal basis                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January                   The applicant took part in Competition COM/TB/99. He
       1998 (5), which contains the provisions in force concern-            challenges his not being placed on the reserve list for the
       ing compensatory allowances, does not lay down any                   recruitment of Administrative Assistants, Senior Administrat-
       specific rule on which the Commission might base itself              ive Assistants and Principal Administrative Assistants.
       in order to ’revise downwards’ the production averages
       for the last three fishing years in the event that one of the
       members leaves a producers’ organisation.                            In support of his application, the applicant claims breach of:
—      Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations                   —     the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                            —     the procedural guarantees afforded by the Community
       According to the legislation in force when the contested                   legal system;
       regulations were adopted and entered into force, the
       applicant legitimately expected to receive higher com-               —     essential procedural requirements and, in particular,
       pensatory allowances. Such expectations were dashed                        infringement of the rules governing the running of
       when the applicable rules were changed under the                           competitions such as those laid down in Article 3(1) of
       contested provisions.                                                      Annex II to the Staff Regulations and in the ’Guide for
                                                                                  selection boards and committees’;
( 1) OJ 2001 L 86, p 4.                                                     —     the legal framework of the competition notice; and
( 2) OJ 2001 L 86, p. 8.
( 3) OJ 2001 L 118, p. 12.
                                                                            —     the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
( 4) OJ 2001 L 159, p. 10.
( 5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January 1998
     laying down detailed rules for granting the compensatory allow-
     ance for tuna intended for the processing industry (OJ 1998 L 17,
     p. 8).
                                                                            Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino against
                                                                                     Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                     (Case T-145/01)
Action brought on 22 June 2001 by Raymond Maxwell
      against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                     (2001/C 245/47)
                           (Case T-143/01)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                           (2001/C 245/46)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino,
                                                                            residing in Lauzun (France), represented by George Vander-
                                                                            sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 June 2001 by Raymond                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Maxwell, residing in Lasne (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                  10 August 2000 not to acknowledge the occupational
                                                                                  origin of his arthritic symptoms;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the consequential decisions to charge to the
—      annul the decision of the selection board for competition                  applicant the fees and incidental expenses of the doctor
       COM/TB/99 to award to the applicant for the oral test a                    appointed by the applicant to the Medical Committee
       mark too low to allow him to be placed on the reserve                      and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the third
       list;                                                                      doctor;
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/30               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.9.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By the present action the applicant, is challenging the appoint-        Applicant for the Com-        Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav
                                                                        munity trade mark:            Andersson
ing authority’s refusal to acknowledge the occupational origin
of a disease which, according to the applicant himself, was             The Community trade           Figurative mark ‘DockerS by Gerli’
caused by having to carry and lift, as part of his duties, loads        mark concerned:               — Application No 22.129 for
of a certain weight.                                                                                  goods in Class 25
                                                                        Proprietor of the right to    Levi Strauss & Co.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                        the trade mark or sign
                                                                        asserted by way of oppo-
—     the allegedly incomprehensible nature of the Medical
                                                                        sition in the opposition
      Committee’s findings;
                                                                        proceedings:
—     infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and           Trade mark or sign            French and Swedish figurative
      Article 3(2) of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of        asserted by way of oppo-      marks ‘DOCKERS’ registered for
      the European Communities against the Risk of Accident             sition in the opposition      goods in Class 25
      and of Occupational Disease, and failure to observe the           proceedings:
      duty of care and the principle of proportionality;
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the application for
—     breach of the procedure laid down in Article 21 of the            sition Division:              registration of the Community
      abovementioned rules.                                                                           trade mark
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal and con-
                                                                        Appeal:                       firmation of the rejection of the
                                                                                                      application for registration of the
                                                                                                      Community trade mark
Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Bruno Heim and Franz                   Grounds of claim:             — infringement of Articles 34
Gustav Andersson against Office for the Harmonization                                                     and 35          of Regulation
 of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                  No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                                      — infringement of Article 8(2)(c)
                                                                                                          of Regulation No 40/94 and
                        (Case T-149/01)
                                                                                                          Rule      8     of  Regulation
                                                                                                          No 2868/95 (2);
                        (2001/C 245/48)                                                               — breach of the concept of ‘risk
                                                                                                          of confusion’
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                 application was drafted: Spanish)                          Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                  Community trade mark(OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3 July 2001 by Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav Andersson,
both residing in Germany, represented by Juan José Carreño
Moreno.
                                                                        Action brought on 2 July 2001 by Cristiano Sebastiani
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the                                     (Case T-150/01)
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
      marks and designs (OHIM)) of 4 April 2001 in the                                           (2001/C 245/49)
      proceedings in R 588/199-3 dismissing the appeal against
      the decision to refuse to register the figurative mark
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
      ‘DockerS by Gerli’ as a Community trade mark for goods
      in Class 25; and
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     order a new decision annulling the preceding decision and         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      granting Community trade mark registration application            European Communities on 2 July 2001 by Cristiano Sebastiani,
      No 22.129 ‘DockerS by Gerli’ for goods in Class 25 of             residing in Brussels represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
      the international classification, of which the applicants         Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
      are the proprietors.                                              Luxembourg.