You are on page 1of 1

28.8.

1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 246/37

Action brought on 2 June 1999 by Anna Posnanteck née The applicant also considers that she is entitled to an orphan’s
Skrzypek v Commission of the European Communities pension and alleges infringement of the third paragraph of
Article 80 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 21 of Annex
VII thereto. The applicant refers to the separate legal status of
(Case T-134/99) the dependent child allowance and the orphan’s pension, the
former being a supplementary allowance in the nature of
(1999/C 246/74) remuneration and the latter a contributory benefit linked with
the pension scheme allowing people not in receipt of the
dependent child allowance at the time of the official’s death to
obtain an orphan’s pension.
(Language of the case: French)
As regards a widow’s right to receive a dependent child
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- allowance, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 81 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 2 June the Staff Regulations.
1999 by Anna Posnanteck née Skrzypek, a widow, residing in
Brussels, represented by Eric Causin and Isabel Jiménez Rojas,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the chambers of Daniel Phong, 222A Avenue Gaston
Diderich.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should: Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &
Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
— annul the decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant
family allowances and an orphan’s pension with retroactive
effect for the applicant herself and for her child Mira (Case T-135/99)
Posnanteck;
(1999/C 246/75)
— declare, inter alia, that her child Mira is entitled to an
orphan’s pension with effect from July 1998, together
with default interest; (Language of the case: German)

— order the defendant to pay the costs. An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1
June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,
Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
The applicant, the widow of a former official, contests the Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
appointing authority’s refusal to grant her and her child family
allowances and an orphan’s pension. That decision is based on
Articles 67, 80 and 81 of the Staff Regulations, all of which The applicant claims that the Court should:
include as a basic precondition for entitlement to orphan’s
benefits the existence of a child recognised as being dependent 1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and
on the official, a condition not fulfilled in the present case. order the defendant:

(a) to permit registration of Community trade mark


In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first, infringe- application No 404053 in respect of all provisions of
ment of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1 services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration
and 2(2) and (3) of Annex VII thereto. As regards the is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);
household allowance, she contends that Article 1(1)(a) of and
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations imposes no requirement
that a married official should live under the same roof as his (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.
spouse, so that the applicant’s spouse was entitled to receive
the household allowance both during his employment and 2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute
when he received an invalidity pension. Since the latter was and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
not paid to him in his lifetime, the appointing authority should procedure before the Board of Appeal.
have decided to pay his entitlement to his beneficiaries. As
regards the dependent child allowance, the applicant claims
that it is contrary to the Staff Regulations for the appointing Pleas in law and main arguments
authority to impose as a precondition for recognition of her
daughter as a dependent child of the official the requirement Trade mark: Word ‘Cine Action’ — Appli-
that proof be produced that he actually maintained her. In her cation No 404053
view, that provision leaves no margin of latitude: the legislature
wished that entitlement to be granted as of right, that is to say Goods or services: ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,
automatically, when there are minor children. 41, 42’