You are on page 1of 1

7.6.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/35

— Violation of the principle of The applicant claims that the Court should:
continuity between the
Opposition Division and the — annul the decisions of 30 April 2002 of the Director
Board of Appeal in that the of the ‘Administration and Personnel Management for
Board of Appeal refused to Luxembourg and Ispra’ Directorate in DG ADMIN refus-
examine the applicant’s ing the applicant the installation allowance and daily
request for proof of use. subsistence allowance during his secondment to Athens,
and the installation allowance upon his return to Luxem-
— Breach of Article 8(1) of
bourg, and that limiting the transferable part of his salary
Council Regulation 40/94 in
to 35 % of his net emoluments from his place of
that there is no likelihood of
secondment to his place of work and habitual residence;
confusion.
— Breach of Article 8(2) (a) (ii) — order the defendant to pay the costs.
of Council Regulation 40/94
in that the Board of Appeal
failed to assess whether the
national trade mark could
validly be invoked to oppose Pleas in law and main arguments
the Community trade mark
application under the
national legislation. The applicant, who was stationed in Luxembourg, was second-
ed in the interests of the service to the Greek Ministry of
Health in Athens. By its contested decisions, the defendant
refused him the installation allowance and daily subsistence
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the allowance and limited the part of his salary he was allowed to
Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1). transfer to Luxembourg to 35 %.
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).
With regard to the refusal of the installation allowance and the
daily subsistence allowance, the applicant claims infringement
of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in
support of his arguments. With regard to the 35 % cap on the
amount of his salary that he was allowed to transfer to
Luxembourg, he claims infringement of Article 38(d) of the
Staff Regulations and of Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Georgios Gouvras


against Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Samar SpA against


(Case T-113/03) the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(2003/C 135/56)
(Case T-115/03)

(Language of the case: French) (2003/C 135/57)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
European Communities on 31 March 2003 by Georgios Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
Gouvras, resident in Bereldange, Luxembourg, represented by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Sébastien 7 April 2003 by Samar SpA, represented by Alessandro Ruo,
Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg. lawyer.