# C_2005271EN.01001702.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/17

---

Appeal brought on 11 July 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and Commission of the European Communities, lodged on 6 September 2005

(Case C-331/05 P)

(2005/C 271/32)

Language of the case: German

An appeal against the order of 11 July 2005 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 September 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., represented by Dr jur. Hans Kaltenecker, 5 rue Raffet, F-75016 Paris.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2005 in Case T-294/04 (1) and either refer the case back to the Court of First Instance or order the defendant to pay to the claimant the amount of EUR 54 037,00; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2005 in Case T-294/04 (1) and either refer the case back to the Court of First Instance or order the defendant to pay to the claimant the amount of EUR 54 037,00;

1

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant substantiates its appeal against the aforementioned order of the Court of First Instance by pleading misappraisal and misapplication of the rules of procedure and of Community law and non-observance of decisions of the Community courts:

| 1. | The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that there is a legal and factual difference between costs of proceedings relating to court proceedings and costs arising in the context of a claim for compensation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that there is a legal and factual difference between costs of proceedings relating to court proceedings and costs arising in the context of a claim for compensation.

| 2. | The Court of First Instance provided no legally persuasive explanation as to why it more or less automatically excludes the lawyers' fees in complaint proceedings before the European mediator from the costs which can be claimed in compensation proceedings. It did not examine the factual and legal substantiation of the need for the involvement of a lawyer in the complaint proceedings brought by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Court of First Instance provided no legally persuasive explanation as to why it more or less automatically excludes the lawyers' fees in complaint proceedings before the European mediator from the costs which can be claimed in compensation proceedings. It did not examine the factual and legal substantiation of the need for the involvement of a lawyer in the complaint proceedings brought by the appellant.

| 3. | The examination by the Court of First Instance of the question of the causal connection between the Commission's unlawful conduct and the damage alleged was superficial and the view reached by it was incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The examination by the Court of First Instance of the question of the causal connection between the Commission's unlawful conduct and the damage alleged was superficial and the view reached by it was incorrect.

| 4. | The Court of First Instance erred in law in placing reliance on a judgment of the Court in order to substantiate its erroneous assertion that proceedings before the European Ombudsman as a matter of principle do not require a lawyer to be involved. That judgment related to the case of a Commission staff member which fell to be determined in accordance with the criteria under the rules on the employment of staff and had no inherent connection with the present case. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Court of First Instance erred in law in placing reliance on a judgment of the Court in order to substantiate its erroneous assertion that proceedings before the European Ombudsman as a matter of principle do not require a lawyer to be involved. That judgment related to the case of a Commission staff member which fell to be determined in accordance with the criteria under the rules on the employment of staff and had no inherent connection with the present case.

---

(1)  OJ C 229 of 17. 9. 2005.

1

---