CELEX: C2003/200/48
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-203/03: Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against Commission of the European Communities

C 200/26             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official at the Commission. He worked                The applicant in this case contests the appointing authority's
from 1992 to 2000 in Brussels. In 2000 he was transferred to             decision to dismiss her for inadequate performance.
Luxembourg and then on 1 September 2001 he was trans-
ferred back to Brussels, where he moved back into the house
in which he had previously lived.                                        In support of her claims, she pleads breach of Article 51 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations since she could not in the circumstances
                                                                         have been found to be in any way incompetent, breach of the
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(1) of Annex VII          duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, misuse of
to the Staff Regulations. In his view, he and his family did in          powers, breach of the right to an inter partes hearing at the
fact move their family residence to his place of service in              time of the administrative inquiry, and disregard of the obliga-
Luxembourg. His transfer back to Brussels cannot therefore be            tion to state reasons and of the principles of proportionality
regarded as a return to his family residence.                            and good administration.
The applicant submits that, under Article 85 of the Staff                Finally, the applicant pleads that the principle of equal treat-
Regulations, recovery of a payment is justified only if the              ment has been infringed since similar cases have been treated
recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the                 differently.
payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such
that he could not have been unaware of it. In the applicant's
opinion, he was entitled to assume that the payment was
justified as the Commission, in full knowledge of the facts,
had decided to grant the installation allowance.
Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
equal treatment of staff members. Installation allowance is
                                                                         Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
payable to a staff member not entitled to the household
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
allowance but not to a staff member entitled to the household
allowance whose family have not yet settled at that staff
member's place of service.                                                                       (Case T-203/03)
                                                                                                 (2003/C 200/48)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo
                        (Case T-200/03)                                  Rasmussen, residing in Hellerup (Denmark), represented by
                                                                         Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
                        (2003/C 200/47)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision No 34988 of 1 July 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                  —     annul the decision of 21 January 2003 rejecting the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   complaint;
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman,
resident in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Carlos Mourato,            —     order the defendant to repay the sums wrongfully recov-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             ered on the basis of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                               together with interest for late payment;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the applicant 10 000 EUR in
                                                                               damages or any other amount, even greater, that the
—     annul the appointing authority's decision of 10 March                    Court may decide is equitable in compensation for the
      2003 to dismiss her;                                                     non-material damage sustained;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            lished for the sale outside the United States of spare parts for
                                                                           its construction equipment infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC.
The applicant was an official at the Commission. By the                    The Commission rejected that complaint by its contested
decision challenged the Commission reprimanded the applicant               decision. In support of its action, the applicant claims that
following alleged false statements made by the him in connec-              the defendant made manifest errors of fact, as well as errors in
tion with his missions and leave.                                          the interpretation and application of the law, in finding that
                                                                           the application to the applicant of the system of selling spare
                                                                           parts for use outside the United States does not constitute an
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Commission Regu-              agreement within the meaning of Article 81 EC and by not
lation No 1 and Article 13 of the EC Treaty. He states that the            applying Article 82 EC although Caterpillar holds a dominant
defendant continued to use French in its letters to him in spite           position in the relevant market. The applicant also puts
of his request to use Danish or English. That constitutes,                 forward alleged infringements of procedural rules and of the
according to the applicant, language discrimination.                       complainant's rights in regard to the allegedly excessive length
                                                                           of the investigation of the complaint lodged by the applicant,
Secondly, the applicant pleads breach of medical confidentiality           the alleged failure to give reasons for the contested decision,
in so far as the defendant consulted its medical staff to                  the alleged lack of diligence and impartiality of the defendant
ascertain whether the applicant was fit to attend the hearing.             in the examination of the complaint, as well as the alleged
That opinion can be based, according to the applicant, only on             infringement of Article 6 of Regulation 2842/1998/EC (1) in
his medical history and his file and therefore constitutes a               that new matters appear for the first time in the contested
breach of professional secrecy.                                            decision without the applicant being able to submit its obser-
                                                                           vations with regard thereto.
Thirdly, the applicant pleads irregularities in the procedure in
so far as the complaints were not clearly formulated in the                (1) OJ 1998 L 354 p. 18.
minutes recording the opening of the disciplinary proceedings.
The applicant also pleads an infringement of rules of law, in
particular of Article 71 and Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l.
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-204/03)
                          (2003/C 200/49)                                                            (Case T-211/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 200/50)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
established in Sorgues (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis,
lawyer, which an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—     annul the Commission's decision of 1 April 2003                      13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l., represented by
      rejecting its complaint against Caterpillar;                         P. Tartuferi and M. Andreano. Industrias Químicas Naber S.A.
                                                                           was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
—     so far as necessary, undertake all measures of inquiry to            Appeal.
      order the Commission to produce all the documents
      relevant to determination of the dispute;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     annul the contested decision;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order OHIM and also Industrias Químicas Naber S.A., in
                                                                                 the event that it should intervene, to pay the costs of the
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission against                     present proceedings together with the costs of the admin-
the Caterpillar Corporation, claiming that the system it estab-                  istrative proceedings before OHIM.