C 135/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.5.2000

— confirm that the Administrative Circular is null and void due to violation of the rights of the Staff Committee, as set out in Art. 46 CoE; — order the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the costs of legal representation necessary for the applicants, such costs to be fixed and ordered for payment by the Court.

The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 1999 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case IV/M.1610 — Deutsche Post/trans-o-flex) and cancel the fines imposed thereby; — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings which the applicant has incurred; — order the defendant, in the event that the applicant is successful, to reimburse to the latter the costs of the bank guarantee provided by the applicant by way of security for the payment of the fines. Pleas in law and principal arguments In the contested decision, the Commission alleges that the applicant deliberately supplied incorrect and misleading information concerning the acquisition of control over trans-o-flex Schnell-Lieferdienste GmbH in the notification given by it in a proceeding pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 in Case IV/M.1447 Deutsche Post/trans-o-flex. In addition, the applicant allegedly supplied deliberately incorrect information in response to several requests for information made by the Commission. For that reason, a fine of EUR 50 000 has been imposed on the applicant on the basis of Article 14(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation. The applicant contests the decision on the grounds that the defendant applied a legally untenable interpretation to Article 14(1)(b) and the first alternative in Article 14(1)(c). In addition, the Commission failed to exercise its discretion properly. The information supplied by the applicant was neither incorrect nor misleading, either as regards the notification of the proposed merger or as regards the answers given in response to the request for information.

Pleas in law and main arguments The applicants are the Staff Committee of the ECB and three members of this committee. They seek the comprehensive withdrawal and annulment of the ECB’s administrative circular endorsing an internet usage policy for its staff members. In support of its case, the applicants mainly put forward the following pleas in law: — By adopting the contested circular, the defendant infringed the Staff Committee’s right to consultation as laid down in Article 46 and 45 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB (CoE). The circular laid down rules and regulations concerning working conditions of the staff, as related to in Article 45 CoE, and could thereof not be adopted without prior consultation of the staff committee. — Moreover, the circular provides for monitoring the staff’s internet usage. This potentially endangers the right of personality of the individual employees. A prior consultation of the Committee was thereof necessary to safeguard the staffs’ individual rights.

Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche Post AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-29/00) (2000/C 135/27)

Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case T-30/00) (2000/C 135/28) (Language of the case: German) 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 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG, of Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian Osterrieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Clifford Chance Pünder, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch.

(Language of the case: German) An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche Post AG, of Bonn (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, of Meerbusch, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.

13.5.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/15

The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the decision adopted on 25 November 1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered under number R 75/1999-3; — order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments The trade mark concerned: Goods or service concerned: pictorial mark using the colours white and red — application No 840 132 Class 3, washing and dish-washing detergent Class 42, research in that field

(2) order the reimbursement to the applicant of the OHIM appeal fee and order the OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings; (3) in the alternative, order that the disclaimer ‘Alle vorgenannten Waren/Dienstleistungen für eine in München stattfindende Messe’ (‘All the aforementioned goods/services in relation to a trade fair held in Munich’) be annexed to the specification of goods/services. Pleas in law and main arguments The trade mark concerned: Goods or service concerned: the denominative and allegedly pictorial mark ‘electronica’ — application No 34587 goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 (including catalogues relating to, and the organisation of, trade fairs in respect of building components and construction groups in the electronics sector) Refusal of registration by the examiner — incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — incorrect application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Decision contested before the Board of Appeal: Grounds of claim:

Refusal of registration by the examiner — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Misuse of discretionary powers

Decision contested before the Board of Appeal: Grounds of claim:

Action brought on 18 February 2000 by Messe München GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case T-32/00) (2000/C 135/29)

Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez ´ Paramo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-33/00) (2000/C 135/30) (Language of the case: French) An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martınez Paramo, of Brussels, Anna Sodro, of Sterrebeek, ´ ´ Belgium, Inès Van Lierde, of Beersel, Belgium, Jean-Martial Marenne, of Brussels, Ron Moys, of West Malling, the United Kingdom, and Michael Horgan, of Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.

(Language of the case: German) 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 18 February 2000 by Messes München GmbH, of Munich (Germany), represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt, of Mitscherlich & Partner, Sonnenstrasse 33, Munich. The applicant claims that the Court should: (1) annul the decision adopted on 17 December 1999 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in appeal No R 177/1998-2;

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful