Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2003 in Case T-171/01: Institut de l'audiovisuel et des télécommunications en Europe (IDATE) v Commission of the European Communities (Arbitration clause — Community Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme — Contract relating to the organisation of seminars on using Euro-ISDN — Allowable costs)
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU programme, European Commission, European audiovisual area, action for failure to act, contract, subcontracting

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/21

States of America, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A. W. H. Meij,
Judges, Registrar:
J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a
judgment on 15 January 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and

severally, the costs incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001 and C 3 of 5.1.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 January 2003

in Case T-171/01: Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécom-
munications en Europe (IDATE) v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Arbitration clause — Community Trans-European Telecom-
munications Networks Programme — Contract relating
to the organisation of seminars on using Euro-ISDN —
Allowable costs)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(2003/C 70/34)

of 12 December 2002

(Language of the case: French)

in Case T-110/01: Vedial SA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Earlier word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 — Application for
a figurative Community mark including the word ‘HUBERT’
— Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion
— Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2003/C 70/33)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-110/01: Vedial SA, a company established in Ludres,
France, represented by T. van Innis and G. Glas, Lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
Hamonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)
(OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly), the other party to the proceedings
before the board of appeal of the Office for Hamonisation in
the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) being France
Distribution, a company established in Emerainville, France —
appeal against the decision of the first board of appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
and designs) of 9 March 2001 (Case R 127/2000-1) — the
Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 12 December 2002, in which it:

1. Dismissed the action;

2. Ordered each party to bear its costs.

( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.

In Case T-171/01, Institut de l’audiovisuel et des télécommuni-
cations en Europe (IDATE), established in Montpellier (France),
represented by H. Calvet, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Shotter and J.-L. Fagnart):
Application for a declaration by the Court of First Instance
that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for the
purposes of the contract concluded between the Commission
and the applicant
the Trans-European
in the context of
Telecommunications Networks Programme, covers the whole
of the costs invoiced by the applicant’s subcontractors under
that contract and, in the alternative, for compensation for the
loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the
breaches committed by the Commission in the performance
of that contract, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 15 January 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that ‘allowable costs’ payable by the Commission, for
the purposes of the contract at issue, covers the whole of the
costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under that
contract.

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.