Case T-312/05: Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, contract, redemption, research expenditure (EU)

C 271/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.10.2005

Finally, the applicant alleges that by establishing a short-list of
only six candidates and continuing the tender procedure, the
Commission has infringed the rules set down in the tender
It also
notice requiring a minimum of eight candidates.
considers that it has been discriminated against, in that in the
original launch and in the first re-launch of the tender proce-
dure, in both of which the applicant had been successful, the
rule requiring a short list of at least eight candidates had been
observed, contrary to what has been the case at the second re-
launch, from which the applicant was excluded.

ment of 16 May 2002, supplemented by the judgment of 30
September 2002, delivered in the case cited above.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges an infringement
of Articles 62 and 67 of the Staff Regulations, together with
Article 17 of Annexes VII and XIII thereof, also in the version
resulting from the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations
of 1 May 2004. He also alleges that general principles of law
have been disregarded, such as the principles of sound adminis-
tration and management, the principle of the protection of
legitimate hopes and expectations, the duty to have regard for
the welfare of employees and the principles which require the
Appointing Authority to adopt a decision solely on the basis of
grounds which are relevant and which are not vitiated by mani-
fest errors of assessment.

Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Rounis v Commis-
sion

(1) Judgments of 16 May 2002 (ECR-SC IA-63;

II-301) and 30

September 2003 (ECR-SC IA-221; II-1079).

(Case T-311/05)

(2005/C 271/43)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E.
Alexiadou

Parties

Applicant(s): George Rounis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-312/05)

(2005/C 271/44)

Language of the case: Greek

Forms of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Parties:

— annul the Commission's decision refusing the transfer of
part of the applicant's salary intended to pay the university
fees for his daughter for the academic year 2003-2004;

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Dimitrios Triantafillou and Dimos Nikopoulos,
lawyer)

— award compensation for material and non-material damage
on account of
the various serious errors committed at
different levels, assessed ex aequo et bono EUR 13 582.88
together with interest at 5.25 % until full payment, subject
to any increase or decrease in the course of the proceed-
ings;

— in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who also brought Case T-17/01 (1), contests, in
particular, the Appointing Authority's refusal to transfer to the
United Kingdom the 35 % of his net monthly salary intended
to pay the fees for his daughter's university studies.

He states,
in that regard, that he provided evidence of the
actual expenses in the United Kingdom and that the right to
make such a transfer has been conferred on him since the judg-

Defendant(s): Effrosini Alexiadou

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of
EUR 26 068.11, corresponding to the principal sum owed
of EUR 23 036.31 and the sum of EUR 3 031.80 owed by
way of default interest from 1 March 2003 to 31 August
2005;

— order the defendant to pay to the Commission interest
amounting to EUR 3.31 per day until the entire amount
due has been paid in full;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

represented by the European
The European Community,
Commission, concluded with the defendant, as member of a
consortium, Contract No G1ST-CT-2002-50227-PLASMA-
LEATHER concerning a specific research and technological
development programme relating to cold plasma treatment for
water-repellent leather.

The contract provided that the Commission would contribute
financially to the proper performance of
the project, by
payment of a sum which would not exceed EUR 832 362.
Within that framework the Commission paid to the defendant,
through the coordinator of the consortium, an advance of
EUR 23 036.31.

However, immediately after receipt of that sum the defendant
declared to the coordinator that she had stopped the produc-
tion of leather articles, had decided to move her business activ-
ities to a different line, could not guarantee successful conclu-
sion of the project activities and considered that it would be
better to leave the project at the beginning of all activities.

The applicant puts forward the same pleas in law and main
arguments that it has put forward in Case T-300/05.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the
determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose
for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary,
Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ No L 138, 1.6.2005, p. 3).

Action brought on 16 August 2005 — Kustom Musical
Amplification/OHIM

(Case T-317/05)

(2005/C 271/46)

Language of the case: English

The defendant was repeatedly given notice to pay, but she did
not return the amount of the advance although, as the coordi-
nator has certified, she did not participate at all in the research
and consequently did not use the advance for such a purpose.

Parties

By its action, the Commission seeks payment of the aforemen-
tioned sum owed and the interest due thereon.

Action brought on 12 August 2005 — Republic of Cyprus
v Commission

(Case T-316/05)

(2005/C 271/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Petros Kliridis)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul Regulation No 832/2005; (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Applicant(s): Kustom Musical Amplification Inc.
by: M.
[represented
USA)
T.Bamford, solicitor]

Edenborough,

(Cincinnati,
and

barrister

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal No
1035/2004-2, or alternatively, annul partially such that the
specification of goods is restricted to ‘Stringed instruments,
namely professional, electric guitars’ in class 15;

— Remit

the Community

application No
3 206 372 to the office so as to allow the said application
to proceed to advertisement;

trade mark

— Order the respondent to pay to the appellant/applicant the
costs incurred by the appellant/applicant
in connection
with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal
and the prosecution before the examiner.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The three dimensional mark
representing the body of the so-called Beast guitar for goods in
class 15 (stringed instruments, namely guitars)
(Community
trade mark application No 3 206 372)

Decision of the examiner: Rejection of the trade mark application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94.