CELEX: C2001/028/50
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-353/00: Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against European Parliament

27.1.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 28/27
—     The Registry may serve documents by fax or e-mail,                       —     the promotions were decided upon in the absence
      provided that the lawyer or agent concerned has agreed                         of any staff report on the applicant or of any other
      to service being effected in that way.                                         document to palliate its absence;
—     Where the lawyer or agent has agreed to service being                    —     the applicant’s merits were erroneously assessed; and
      effected in that way, the statement of an address for
      service in Luxembonrg is optional.
                                                                               —     the promotions procedure is vitiated by the fact that
                                                                                     it was based on reports drawn up on the basis of a
—     There is to be a single, uniform ten-day extension of the                      system of awarding points which disregards the
      time-limit on account of distance, regardless of the                           ‘Guide de la notation’.
      location of the party concerned.
Practice directions concerning the detailed implementation of
these amendments will be issued and promulgated in due
course.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le
                                                                                         Pen against European Parliament
Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huy-                                                 (Case T-353/00)
 gens against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (2001/C 28/50)
                        (Case T-351/00)
                         (2001/C 28/49)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing in St Cloud
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                (France), represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 November 2000 by Hubert
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         —     declare the contested measure null and void;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     award the applicant FRF 50 000 in non-returnable dam-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                     ages;
      Communities not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1
      in the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP),
                                                                         contests the decision taken by the President of the European
—     Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and            Parliament on 23 October 2000 taking note, in accordance
      breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as no                 with Article 12(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning
      reasons have been provided for the contested decision.             the election of representatives to the European Parliament by
                                                                         direct universal suffrage, of the notification from the French
—     Infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff                Government of the termination of the term of office of Jean-
      Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-           Marie Le Pen as MEP. That decision was taken after he was
      ment and sound administration, inasmuch as:                        found guilty of a criminal offence by a French criminal court.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.1.2001
In support of his application the applicant alleges that:                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     there is nothing in the Act of 20 September 1976 or in             —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament                        Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      permitting the Member States to terminate, for national                  Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in Case
      reasons, the term of office of an MEP, other than in cases               R 142/2000-3,
      of incompatibilities arising during the term of office,
      which is not the case here;                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                               (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
—     such a measure is all the more contrary to the principles
      of Community law inasmuch as it is the result of an
      entirely national decision, which cannot by itself be the          Pleas in law and main arguments
      basis for a Community decision;
                                                                         Mark:                         Word mark ‘TELE AID’ — Appli-
—     there is a general legal principle based on the generally                                        cation No 469 957
      applicable rules of law of the Member States which means
      that termination must be decided by the parliamentary              Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 12,
      assembly concerned itself;                                                                       9, 37, 38, 39 and 42 (including
                                                                                                       motor vehicles, motor vehicle
—     the substantive procedural rules have been disregarded in                                        repair, equipment for the trans-
      the present case inasmuch as the Legal Affairs Committee                                         mission of speech and data, emer-
      was not convened and the applicant was not given a                                               gency call systems for motor
      hearing by that committee;                                                                       vehicles, breakdown assistance,
                                                                                                       rescue services)
—     in the contested measure, the President of the European            Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
      Parliament purportedly spoke on behalf of the Parliament           beforethe     Board of
      when she did not have the authority to do so.                      Appeal:
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of                                                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
parliamentary immunity and legal certainty.
                                                                                                       — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                                           of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-                     Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-355/00)                                                          (Case T-356/00)
                         (2001/C 28/51)                                                           (2001/C 28/52)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, of Stuttgart
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart,                      (Germany), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of
Germany, represented by Stefan Völker of Gleiss Lutz Hootz               Messrs Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,
Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                              Germany.