Case T-177/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  9 January 2006  — Finland v Commission (Procedural issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Acts not producing binding legal effects — European Communities' own resources — Infringement proceedings — Interest for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Negotiation of an agreement on conditional payment)
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, Member States' contribution, action for annulment (EU), financial regulation, infringement procedure (EU), own resources, payment

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/19

Application for

first, annulment of an act of the Commission rejecting the
applicants' request for the withdrawal of rosin from the list of
sensitising substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive
67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classifi-
cation, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ,
English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), and,
for
compensation for the damages suffered

second,

the Cohesion Fund for the project entitled 'Construction of
Phase 1 of the second landfill site for waste in West Attica at
‘Skalistiri’ in the municipality of Fyli'.

Operative part of the Order

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants shall bear the costs of the proceedings, including

those relating to the interim proceedings.

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred

by the defendant.

3. The intervener shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2006 —
Dimos Ano Liosion and Others v Commission

(Case T-85/05) (1)

(Inadmissibility — Persons not the addressees of Community
measures — Direct concern)

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2006 —
Finland v Commission

(Case T-177/05) (1)

(Procedural issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Acts
not producing binding legal effects — European Commu-
nities' own resources — Infringement proceedings — Interest
for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation
(EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Negotiation of an agree-
ment on conditional payment)

(2006/C 74/39)

Language of the case: Finnish

(2006/C 74/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Parties:

Applicants: Dimos Ano Liosion (Greece), Theodora Goula,
Argyris Argyropoulos,
Ioannis Manis, Eleni Ntalipi, Vasilis
Papagrigoriou and Giorgos Fragkalexis (Ano Liossia, Greece)
(represented by: G. Kalavros, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafyllou and L. Flynn, Agents)

Application for

Annulment of Commission Decision E (2004) 5522 of 21
December 2004 concerning the grant of financial assistance by

Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and
A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)

Application for

Annulment of the Commission decision (Budget Directorate-
General) contained in the letter of 28 February 2005 and in the
confirmatory letter of 25 April 2005 whereby the Commission
refused to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland
on the conditional payment of retroactive duties, plus default
interest up to the date of payment, which the Commission
claimed from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringe-
ment proceedings 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC.

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