Case T-46/05: Action brought on  3 February 2005  — Commission v Environmental Management Consultants Ltd
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, analytical chemistry, appeal to the Court (EU), bankruptcy, contract, redemption, research project, technological change, termination of a contract

C 108/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

(Athens, Greece)

Defendants: Transport Environment Development Systems
(Trends)
(represented by: V. Christianos,
lawyer), Marios Kontaratos (Athens), Anastasios Tillis (Neo Irak-
leio, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Georgios
Argyrakos (Athens), Konstantinos Petrakis (Cholargos, Greece)
and Fotini Koutroumpa (Glyfada, Greece)

Application for

An order that the defendants repay the amount of the financial
contribution overpaid by the European Community in respect
of two contracts concluded in implementation of the Com-
munity Programme entitled ‘Telemetric systems in the area of
transport’.

Re:

Application made by the Commission for an order that the
defendants reimburse the excess of the financial contribution
paid by the European Community under
two contracts
concluded in connection with the implementation of the Com-
munity programme
common
interest’.

applications of

‘Telematics

Operative part of the Order

1. In so far as it is directed against Messrs Tillis, Kontaratos, Argyr-
akos and Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa, the action is dismissed for
inadmissibility.

2. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred

by Mr Tillis in respect of his plea of inadmissibility.

Operative part of the Order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is brought
against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and
Ms Koutroumpa.

(1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.

2. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred

by Mr Tillis relating to his plea of inadmissibility.

(1) OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.

Action brought on 3 February 2005 — Commission v
Environmental Management Consultants Ltd

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2006
— Commission v Trends and Others

(Case T-449/04) (1)

(Arbitration clause — Plea of inadmissibility — Action
against a company's shareholders)

(2006/C 108/40)

Language of the case: Greek

(Case T-46/05)

(2006/C 108/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafillou, and by N. Koroyiannakis, lawyer,)

Defendant:
(Nicosia, Cyprus)

Environmental Management

Consultants

Ltd

Parties:

Form of order sought

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia, Agent, and M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou and
S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers).

(Athens, Greece)

Defendants: Transport Environment Development Systems
(Trends)
(represented by: V. Christianos,
lawyer), Marios Kontaratos (Athens), Anastasios Tillis (Neo Irak-
leio, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Giorgios
Argyrakos (Athens), Konstantinos Petrakis (Cholargos, Greece)
and Fotini Koutroumpa (Glyfada, Greece).

— that

the defendant be ordered to pay EUR 44 056,81,
and
EUR 31 965,28
corresponding
EUR 12 091,53 as default interest, from the date on which
the debit note fell due up to 31 January 2005

capital

to

— that the defendant be ordered to pay interest of EUR 9,62
per day from 1 February 2005 until full satisfaction of the
debt, and

— that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs.

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

and

international

organisations. The

represented by the European
The European Community,
Commission, concluded a contract with the defendant which
fell under the provisions of the special programme with third
countries
contract
concerned in particular the carrying out of a project entitled
‘Demonstration of closed-loop procedures in electroplating and
metal chemistry’ and should have been completed within 30
months of 1 November 1998. In the context of the contract,
the Commission undertook to contribute financially to the
proper carrying out of the project with an amount of 50 % of
the allowable full costs and 100 % of the additional costs up to
EUR 538 000.

In May 1999 the company which was coordinating the work
became insolvent and suspended performance of the project
which had begun on 5 February 1999. It was not possible to
find another coordinator, despite the efforts of certain of the
remaining members of
the consortium. Subsequently the
Commission decided to terminate the contract after it ascer-
tained that it would not be possible for the remaining members
of the consortium to carry out the project. The Commission
notified its decision to the defendant by a letter of 16 June
2000, asking the defendant to submit a cost statement and
technical report on the work carried out between February and
May 1998.

for the period
The defendant submitted a cost statement
the Commission decided to
1.11.1998 to 30.4.2000, but
proceed to assess the cost of personnel only for the period
February to May 1999, which it considers constitutes the
period of the actual duration of the programme, and to include
the cost of equipment. On the basis of those calculations, the
Commission accepted costs of EUR 23 404,72 and by this
of
application
reimbursement
EUR 31 965,28, which constitutes
the
advance it had paid to the defendant,
together with the
payment of interest owed on that amount in accordance with
the relevant provisions .

of
amount
the remainder of

seeks

an

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
(Trade
and Designs) of 30 November 2005 (Case

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks
0179/2005-2);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional mark in the
form of a section of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 —
Application No 2496743

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 on the ground that the shape of the product
covered by the mark is outside the usual range of forms. The
three-dimensional mark is therefore distinctive.

Infringement of Article 7(3) of the Regulation inasmuch as the
Board of Appeal, after considering the circumstances, should
have invited the applicant to provide further opinions, if this
could have led to constituting evidence for the purpose of
Article 7(3).

Action brought on 28 February 2006 — Cassegrain v
OHIM

(Case T -73/06)

(2006/C 108/43)

Action brought on 27 February 2006 — ENERCON v
OHIM

Language in which the application was lodged: French

(Case T-71/06)

(2006/C 108/42)

Parties

Applicant:
Coursin and T. van Innis, lawyers)

Jean Cassegrain (Paris, France)

(represented by: Y.

Language of the case: German

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

Parties

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant: ENERCON GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by
R. Böhm, lawyer)

— Primarily, annul the decision taken and order OHIM to pay

the costs;