C 135/14 EN 13.5.2000Official Journal of the European Communities— 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— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 1999out in Art. 46 CoE;concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 14 of CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case IV/M.1610 — Deut-— order the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings, insche Post/trans-o-flex) and cancel the fines imposedparticular the costs of legal representation necessary forthereby;the applicants, such costs to be fixed and ordered forpayment by the Court.— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedingswhich the applicant has incurred;— order the defendant, in the event that the applicant is
Pleas in law and main arguments
successful, to reimburse to the latter the costs of the bankguarantee provided by the applicant by way of security forThe applicants are the Staff Committee of the ECB and threethe payment of the fines.members of this committee. They seek the comprehensivewithdrawal and annulment of the ECB’s administrative circularendorsing an internet usage policy for its staff members.
Pleas in law and principal arguments
In the contested decision, the Commission alleges that theIn support of its case, the applicants mainly put forward theapplicant deliberately supplied incorrect and misleading infor-following pleas in law:mation concerning the acquisition of control over trans-o-flexSchnell-Lieferdienste GmbH in the notification given by it in a— By adopting the contested circular, the defendant infringedproceeding pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 inthe Staff Committee’s right to consultation as laid down inCase IV/M.1447 Deutsche Post/trans-o-flex. In addition, theArticle 46 and 45 of the Conditions of Employment forapplicant allegedly supplied deliberately incorrect informationStaff of the ECB (CoE). The circular laid down rules andin response to several requests for information made by theregulations concerning working conditions of the staff, asCommission. For that reason, a fine of EUR 50 000 has beenrelated to in Article 45 CoE, and could thereof not beimposed on the applicant on the basis of Article 14(1)(b) andadopted without prior consultation of the staff committee.(c) of that regulation.— Moreover, the circular provides for monitoring the staff’sThe applicant contests the decision on the grounds that theinternet usage. This potentially endangers the right of defendant applied a legally untenable interpretation to Articlepersonality 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 safeguardthe Commission failed to exercise its discretion properly. Thethe staffs’ individual rights.information supplied by the applicant was neither incorrectnor misleading, either as regards the notification of theproposed merger or as regards the answers given in responseto the request for information.
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche PostAction brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaGAG against the Commission of the European Communi-against the Office for Harmonisation in the InternaltiesMarket (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 InternalMarket (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before theAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG, of Düsseldorf (Germany),European Communities on 16 February 2000 by DeutschePost AG, of Bonn (Federal Republic of Germany), represented represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian Oster-rieth,Rechtsanwälte,ofMessrs CliffordChancePünder,Düssel-by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, of Meerbusch, with anaddress for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at theChambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch.Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.