Case T-7/05: Action brought on 11 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Parthenon A.E.
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, contract, project management, redemption, research expenditure (EU), research project

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/39

Lastly, the applicant claims that the Commission has misused
its powers, in so far as it introduced in the contested decision
criteria for
subdividing the market which, by making a
temporal distinction between the services supplied by ship and
those provided by fast vessel, achieved the objective of author-
ising an aid scheme in favour of transport services provided by
ship by Caremar, a scheme which would never otherwise have
been declared compatible, given the existence of competition
from the private companies which operate in conditions to a
certain extent
transport
services.

comparable with the passenger

(1) Decision not yet published in the Official Journal.

Action brought on 4 January 2005 by Guido Strack
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-4/05)

(2005/C 57/65)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 January 2005 by Guido Strack,
residing in Wasserliesch (Germany), represented by R. Schmitt,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul both the decision of 5 February 2004 to close the
OLAF investigation OF/2002/0356 and the final case report
on which that decision was based (NT/sr D(2003)-AC-
19723-01687 of 5 February 2004);

— order the Commission to reopen the investigation, draw up
a new final case report and pay all the costs of the judicial
proceedings and all other expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Commission official,
informed the
Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
that, while performing his duties at the Official Publications
Office, he had become of aware of facts indicating the existence
of serious irregularities. The investigation opened by OLAF on
the basis of that information was closed by the contested deci-
sion.

The applicant submits, first of all, that his action is admissible
because the contested decision has binding legal effect on him
in that it deprives him of the status of ‘whistleblower’.

In support of his action, he submits that OLAF failed to investi-
gate fully the facts of which it had been informed and adopted
an arbitrary decision.

Action brought on 11 January 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Parthenon A.E.

(Case T-7/05)

(2005/C 57/66)

(Language of the Case: Greek)

An action against Parthenon – Anonimos Etairia Ikodomikon –
Touristikon – Viomikhanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon
Ergasion was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 January 2005 by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
Triantafillou, Legal Adviser, assisted by Nikolaos Korogiannakis,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 325 452,80,
which corresponds to EUR 259 800 by way of principal
sum and EUR 65 652,80 in default
interest up to 10
January 2005;

2. order

the defendant

to pay in addition interest of

EUR 71,18 per day until the debt has been settled in full;

3. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community,
represented by the European
Commission, concluded with the defendant, as coordinator and
member of a joint venture, a contract that formed part of
implementation of the provisions of the specific programme of
‘research, technological development and demonstration in the
field of agriculture and fisheries’. More specifically, the contract
was concerned with the carrying out of a project entitled ‘devel-
opment of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’ and
was to be performed within a period of 24 months from 1
September 1998. Under the contract the Commission entered
into the obligation to make a financial contribution towards
the proper execution of the project amounting to 50 % of the
allowable
being
ECU 433 000.

the maximum contribution

costs,

C 57/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.3.2005

Since the work had not been completed on the prescribed date
(31 August 2000) and the defendant had not lodged a scientific
report and a cost statement, as stipulated by the contract, the
Commission decided to terminate the contract with effect from
24 February 2001. The subsequent correspondence between
the defendant and the Commission did not, in the Commis-
sion's view, reveal new matters which could alter the content
of the Commission's decision.

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the exam-

Refusal of the application.

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal.

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

By its action, the Commission seeks reimbursement of the sum
of EUR 259 800, which it paid to the defendant as an advance
in respect of its financial contribution to the performance of
the work, and payment of the interest due on that sum, in
accordance with the relevant provisions of Greek law which is
applicable under the contract.

Action brought on 18 January 2005 by Wim De Waele
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-15/05)

(2005/C 57/67)

Removal from the Register of Case T-313/01 R (1)

(2005/C 57/68)

(Language of the case: Greek)

the Court of First

By order of 25 November 2004, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of
the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Case T-313/01 R. v Commission of the European Commu-
nities.

Instance of

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18
January 2005 by Wim De Waele, residing in Bruges (Belgium),
represented by Paul Maeyaert and Samuel Granata.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2004 (Case R
820/2004-1) and annul it in part, namely in so far as it
concerns the goods ‘sausage casings for charcuterie’ in Class
18 or at least in so far as it concerns the goods ‘sausage
casings for charcuterie intended for professional customers’;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Removal from the Register of Case T-386/03 (1)

(2005/C 57/69)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 15 December 2004, the President of the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the Register of Case T-386/03, Deutsche Telekom v Office for
(Trade Marks and
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) (OHIM).

Community trade mark
sought:

Three-dimensional mark in the
shape of an oblong with grooves
twisting to the left and to the right
diamond-shaped
which
geometrical patterns, for goods in
Classes 18, 29 and 30 – Applica-
tion No 3 050 531.

create

(1) OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.