# C_2004262EN.01003101.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/31

---

Action brought on 5 July 2004 by Citymo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-271/04)

(2004/C 262/60)

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 5 July 2004 by Citymo S.A, established in Brussels, represented by Pierre Van Ommeslaghe and Isabelle Heenen, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant is at fault and contractually liable and order it to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 27 330 577.77, the estimated amount of its loss, together with interest at the legal rate applicable in Belgium (currently 7 %) from the date of the application to the date of actual payment, the amount being subject to adjustment during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant is at fault and contractually liable and order it to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 27 330 577.77, the estimated amount of its loss, together with interest at the legal rate applicable in Belgium (currently 7 %) from the date of the application to the date of actual payment, the amount being subject to adjustment during the proceedings;

| — | declare, alternatively, that the Community, represented by the Commission, is liable and order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 20 589 332.22 as compensation for the loss suffered together with default interest on that sum from the date of judgment until the date of actual payment, at the rate of 6 %, the amount being subject to adjustment during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, alternatively, that the Community, represented by the Commission, is liable and order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 20 589 332.22 as compensation for the loss suffered together with default interest on that sum from the date of judgment until the date of actual payment, at the rate of 6 %, the amount being subject to adjustment during the proceedings;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant affirms that it concluded a contract for a lease with the Commission of a building in Brussels comprising 16 954 m2. The Commission even agreed that the lessor should place an order for the interior fitting-out required to be done.

2

However, the Commission informed the lessor before 1 November 2003, the date on which the lease became effective, that it intended neither to take the property on lease nor to indemnify the applicant for the work already arranged.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

| — | Although the lease contract had not been formally signed by the Commission, it bound the parties, since the contract is concluded under Belgian law by simple consent of the parties without formalities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Although the lease contract had not been formally signed by the Commission, it bound the parties, since the contract is concluded under Belgian law by simple consent of the parties without formalities;

| — | The Commission is liable by reason of its repudiation of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission is liable by reason of its repudiation of the contract.

The applicant seeks the setting aside of the contract due to the Commission's fault pursuant to Article 1.184 of the Belgian Civil Code and an order that it compensate the applicant for the loss it suffers as a result thereof.

In the alternative, should the Court not accept that the contract at issue was concluded, the applicant considers that the Commission committed an act of non-contractual negligence by breaking off the negotiations. It claims in that regard that the defendant acted in bad faith by disappointing Citymo's legitimate expectations acquired during the contract negotiations and by leading it to believe that the contract would be concluded, but then withdrawing from it and failing to act in good faith by informing the applicant of its changed intentions.

---