Case T-171/01: Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de l'Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU programme, European Commission, European audiovisual area, action for failure to act, contract, subcontracting

C 303/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

Trade mark or
sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,
‘MISS GIORGI’,
‘GIORGI LINE’,
registered for goods in Class 3

the performance of the INFORMS contract; consequently,
order it to pay to IDATE the sum of Euros 503 662 by
way of damages;

Dismissal of the opposition and
party bringing opposition pro-
ceedings ordered to pay costs

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the whole of
the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the
present action.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal and appel-
lant ordered to pay costs

Grounds of claim:

Contrary to what is stated in the
contested decision, there is likeli-
hood of confusion between the
Community trade mark and the
trade marks of which the appli-
cant is the proprietor, since the
differences between them to not
allow the consumer to differen-
tiate between them.

Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-171/01)

(2001/C 303/31)

(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 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe, estab-
lished in Montpellier (France), represented by Mr Hugues
Calvet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare and hold that ‘allowable costs’ within the meaning
of Article 1.2 of Annex II
to contract No 45504
concluded between the Commission and IDATE on
28 March 1996 covers the whole of the costs invoiced to
IDATE by the ‘partners’ under that contract and, therefore,
that the Commission is not entitled to claim from IDATE
reimbursement of the sum of Euros 503 662 under the
above contract or, more generally, any sum at all;

— in the alternative, declare and hold that the Commission
infringed its duty of good faith and its duty to inform
IDATE and thereby committed breaches of contract in

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants states that in the context of the Community
Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme it
concluded a contract (Contract No 45504) concerning the
INFORMS project (‘Dissemination of EuroISDN Benefits for
SMEs’) under which it agreed to organise, throughout the
Member countries of the European Union, seminars aimed at
informing and advising small and medium sized undertakings
on the possible advantages of using the EuroISDN. In view of
the size of the project, the contract called for the participation
of subcontractors (‘partners’). Under the above contract, the
Commission agreed to contribute, at the level of 50,85 %, to
the financing of the total allowable costs borne under the
contract, which include subcontracting costs.

Initially the Commission paid its contribution in respect of all
the costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under
the above contract, but after an audit of the contract it claimed
from the applicant a certain amount of the sum paid on the
ground that a part of the subcontracting costs was not covered
by the concept of allowable costs in as much as it had not
actually been paid by the applicant to the subcontractors but
is the subject matter of a set-off.

The applicant disputes that interpretation and submits that, as
regards the subcontracting costs borne under the INFORMS
contract, it was merely an intermediatory between the Com-
mission and the other partners, since it merely paid back
directly to the ‘partners’, at a rate of 50,85 % of the costs borne
by them, the sums paid by the Commission by way of
Community finance of the subcontracting in the INFORMS
project, which explains why all the subcontracting costs were
invoiced to it and why it set off the amount corresponding to
the financing which each individual
‘partner’ had to raise
(the remaining 49,15 %). The applicant submits that the
Community contribution must be calculated on the total cost
actually borne under the INFORMS contract, which means, as
regards subcontracting, the total cost borne by the ‘partners’.
That amount corresponds to the total costs invoiced to the
applicant, since, in that area, it merely centralised the accounts
and played the role of intermediatory with regard to the
Commissions contribution.