You are on page 1of 1

15.6.

2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 144/59

Mark or sign right cited The German national figurative but was mislaid within the Commission’s services. The appli-
in opposition: marks ‘a’ for goods in Class 25 cant was thus unable properly to discharge his financial
(inter alia, clothing) obligations and was required to pay a penalty. As the
administrative fault on the Commission’s part is proved, the
Decision of Opposition Refusal of application for regis- applicant is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and
Division: tration of mark non-pecuniary harm sustained.

Decision of Board of Annulment of the decision of the


Appeal: Opposition Division with respect
to goods in Classes 9, 16, 35 and
41; affirmation of the decision
with respect to goods in Class 25

Pleas in law: — No similarity with the rel-


evant goods in Class 25
Action brought on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.
— Significant difference from against the Commission of the European Communities
the figurative marks

(Case T-121/02)

(2002/C 144/115)

Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu (Language of the case: Italian)
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-116/02)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(2002/C 144/114) ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.,
represented by Professor Franco Gallo, Gabriele Escalar and
(Language of the case: French)
Professor Adriano Rossi, Lawyers.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- The applicant claims that the Court should:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu, — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
residing in Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, avocat. Communities of 11 December 2001 no C54/A/2000/EC,
unpublished, declaring incompatible with the internal
The applicant claims that the Court should: market the system of State aid laid down by Italian
legislation in the form of tax advantages for banks and
banking institutions;
— order the Commission to make reparation for the pecuni-
ary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicant,
amounting to EUR 353; — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
and all consequential costs.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official of the Commission and at the The main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case
material time was on temporary secondment to the Court of T-36/02 ABI v Commission (1).
Justice.

In support of his claim for damages, the applicant alleges that (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002, p. 14.
the Commission’s mail service received a letter from an Italian
professional body addressed to the applicant and containing a
demand for payment. The letter did not reach the applicant