Case T-396/05: Action brought on  2 November 2005  — ARCHI.M.E.D.-E.S v Commission
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), claim, contract, improvement of housing, law of obligations, redemption, solar architecture, termination of a contract

C 74/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 153 of 25.6.2005.

Action brought on 2 November 2005 — ARCHI.M.E.D.-
E.S v Commission

(Case T-396/05)

(2006/C 74/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Architecture, Microclimat, Energies Douces —
Europe et Sud SARL (ARCHI.M.E.D.-E.S)
(Ganges, France)
(represented by: P.-P. van Gehuchten, J. Sambon, P. Reyniers,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's set-off decision contained in the
letter of 5 October 2005, notified to the applicant on 10
October 2005;

— annul the recovery decision contained in the letters of 30
August 2005 and the debit note No 3240705638 of 23
August 2005, notified to the applicant on 2 September
2005;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is party to Contract BU 209-95 concluded with
the Commission in consequence of the invitation to tender
made in connection with the specific programme for research
and technological development
in the field of non-nuclear
energy (1) and covering the execution of a project of renovation
of a building in Lyon by using solar and bio-climatic architec-
ture methods. In execution of its contractual obligations, the
applicant, on 12 December 2001, sent the Commission the
final report on the project. The Commission did not accept
that report and, on 5 July 2002, sent the applicant a decision
to recover certain payments made by refusing to accept certain
costs declared by it in that report. Neither exchanges of cor-
respondence between the parties, nor the meetings held nor the
intervention of a mediator could bring about an amicable
settlement of the dispute.

another

By registered letter of 30 August 2005, the Commission sent
the applicant a final recovery decision preceded by a debit note
of 23 August 2005. By
registered letter of
5 October 2005, the Commission also communicated to the
applicant a decision imposing a set-off of
their reciprocal
claims: certain claims of the Commission against the applicant
in connection with the contract in question, on the one hand
and, on the other hand, certain claims of the applicant against
the Commission to which it is entitled in connection with
another contract. Those are the decisions challenged.

The applicant challenges the decisions relying on two main
pleas in law.

it claims that, by the contested decisions,

the
First of all,
Commission is in breach of
the ordinary rules of set-off
between reciprocal claims. The applicant maintains that such
set-off is not available when the claims are governed by two
different legal systems. According to the applicant, its claims
against the Commission are based on Community law, while
the Commission's claims against the applicant are governed by
French law. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commis-
sion has no legal basis enabling it to impose the set-off on the
applicant, while the claims concerned are as yet uncertain,
which is substantiated by numerous challenges on the part of
the applicant itself and the process before the mediator which
has not yet been completed.

the applicant submits that

the
By its second plea in law,
recovery decision should be annulled for
failure to state
reasons. It avers that the Commission has never furnished satis-
factory explanations, in particular with regard to the arguments
raised by the applicant over the manner in which it established
the amount of its claim.

(1) Programme put in place by Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23

November 1994 (OJ L 334 of 22 December 1994, p. 87).

Action brought on 3 November 2005 — ARCHI.M.E.D.-
E.S v Commission

(Case T-397/05)

(2006/C 74/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Architecture, Microclimat, Energies Douces —
Europe et Sud SARL (ARCHI.M.E.D.-E.S)
(Ganges, France)
(represented by: P.-P. van Gehuchten, J. Sambon, P. Reyniers,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities