Case T-189/01: Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrator, promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 303/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

a company duly organized and incorporated under the laws of
the State of Delaware (USA), represented by Nicholas Levy,
John Temple Lang and Robert O’Donoghue, of Cleary, Gottlieb,
Steen & Hamilton, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2001,
ordering interim measures in case COMP D3/38044,

alternatively

— annul the decision insofar as it requires IMS Health to
license the 1 860 Brick Structure to companies currently
present on the German market for regional sales data
services and specifies the conditions under which the
negotiation of licence terms is to be conducted and
approved by the Commission,

and, in any event,

— order the Commission to pay IMS Health’s legal costs and

expenses in relation to this matter;

The Commission’s argument that the applicant’s copyright is a
prerequisite for entering the market
is, according to the
applicant, also incorrect and based on a misinterpretation of
the facts. The applicant states that its competitors are using a
different structure to present the information and that new-
comers in the market are free to develop their own structure.
The applicant claims that its ‘1 860 brick structure’ is not the
de facto industry standard, but merely the format used by the
leading data services provider.

The applicant further claims that there is no prima facie case to
justify the ordering of an interim measure. Also, the Com-
mission has erred in weighing the interests involved for the
purposes of ordering the interim measures. According to the
applicant, the grant of a licence would cause irreparable
damage to its business and render its intellectual property
rights devoid of all purpose.

The applicant further claims that the Commission has violated
the applicant’s rights of defence during the preliminary
procedure.

— adopt all such further measures as the Court may consider

appropriate.

Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
against the Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant provides regional sales data in Germany to
pharmaceutical companies. It has developed in that connection
a specific presentation of
information, called the
‘1 860 brick structure’, of which the applicant holds the
intellectual property rights in Germany.

this

The Commission has ordered an interim measure relating to a
proceeding against the applicant under Article 82 of the EC
Treaty, requiring the applicant to grant licences for the use of
the ‘1 860 brick structure’ to third parties currently present on
the German market for the provision of regional sales data.
That measure is currently contested by the applicant.

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
Commission has violated the protection granted by national
and international law to its intellectual property rights. The
right to refuse access to one’s intellectual property constitutes,
according to the applicant, the essence of intellectual property
rights. Such a refusal is not therefore contrary to Article 82
EC, unless it is accompanied by additional conduct. Such
conduct is, according to the applicant, not present in this case.

(Case T-189/01)

(2001/C 303/34)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision adopted by the Commission on
22 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
name should not be included on the list of grade A 5
officials considered the most deserving of promotion
under the 1999 promotion procedure and, as a result,
that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A 4
under the 1999 promotions procedure;

— in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appli-
cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations;

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/21

— consequently annul the 1999 A 4 promotions procedure

with regard to the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Managium, relating to the Biogaz, Solaire Bioclima-
tique and Biogaz contracts is unlawful, since those
invoices cover the services actually provided by the
applicant’s Managing Director in accordance with
the work programme;

and consequently declare that the fees charged by Deira
and Managium must be accepted;

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward the same
pleas in law as in Case T-188/01. In addition the applicant
alleges non-compliance with the promotions procedure.

— declare that the decision terminating the Photovoltaic

SME/1883/98-EU contract is unlawful;

Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Groupement
européen d’intérêt économique Lior against the Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-192/01)

(2001/C 303/35)

(Language of the case: French)

and consequently declare that the Commission has no
legal
the advance of
to claim repayment of
36 000 Euros paid by way of financial contribution;

right

— declare that

the Commission’s decision retroactively
terminating the Transport DIS/1178/1997-BE Agreement
is unlawful;

and consequently declare that the Commission has no
legal right to claim repayment of the initial advance of
36 000 Euros paid by way of financial contribution, and
that the contract should run its term;

r e g a r d s

A s
4 1 0 3 0 / Z / 9 9 - 0 8 5 c o n t r a c t

t h e A l t e n e r A g o r e s

X V I I /

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 August 2001 by the Groupe-
ment européen d’intérêt économique Lior, established in
Brussels, represented by Véronique Marien and Joëlle Chou-
croun, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

I n t h e c o n t e x t o f p e r f o r m a n c e o f T h e r m i e
c o n t r a c t s

— order the European Commission to pay the final instal-

ment of its financial contribution, namely:

— order the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 Euros,
representing the final instalment of its financial contri-
bution, together with interest at the statutory rate from
the date of the letter of 23 July 2001 giving formal notice
to pay;

r e g a r d s

A s
t r a c t s

t h e T h e r m i e a n d A l t e n e r c o n -

— order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
the damage suffered in the context of the performance of
all of the Thermie and Altener contracts, initially esti-
mated, on a fair and equitable basis, to amount to the
sum of 1 million Euros, subject to increase or decrease in
the course of proceedings;

— for

the
40 500 Euros

Biomasse

SME/1539/97

contract:

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

— for

the Windenergy

SME/792/96

contract:

36 000 Euros,

together with interest at the statutory rate from the date
of the letter of 6 July 2001 giving formal notice to pay
until payment in full;

— declare that

the Commission’s decision rejecting the

invoices of its members

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, a European economic
interest grouping with 10 members representing 4 countries
of the European Union, concluded several contracts with the
Commission under the Thermie Programme, Section B, with
the aim of creating CD-ROMs concerning:

— Deira, relating to all of the Thermie contracts, is
unlawful, in that it is based on a non-contractual
audit of its accounts;

— the management of biogas obtained from waste and
waste-water treatment (Biogaz SME/003/95-BE contract);