Case T-86/06: Action brought on  16 March 2006  — Studio Bichara e.a. v Commission
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Commission Delegation, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), indemnification, liability, operation of the Institutions, termination of a contract

C 121/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Action brought on 24 February 2006 — Armando Álvarez
v Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 16 March 2006 — Studio Bichara e.a. v
Commission

(Case T-78/06)

(2006/C 121/24)

(Case T-86/06)

(2006/C 121/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Armando Álvarez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E.
Garayar and A. García Castillo, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicants: Studio Bichara SrL, Riccardo Bichara and Maria
Proietti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Pappalardo and M.C.
Santacroce, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare the present action for annulment admissible;

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision C(2005) 4634 Final of 30 November 2005,
in Case COMP/F/38.354 in so far as it imputes liability to
Armando Álvarez, S.A.;

— Order

the Commission to pay all costs

incurred by

Armando Álvarez, S.A. in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks annulment of Commission C(2005) 4634
Final of 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — indus-
trial bags. In the contested decision, the Commission states that
the applicant, together with other companies, infringed Article
81 EC by participating,
in agree-
ments and concerted practices in the industrial plastic bag
the Netherlands, Luxembourg,
sector in Germany, Belgium,
the
these infringements,
Spain and France.
Commission imposed a fine on the applicant jointly and sever-
ally with Plásticos Españoles, S.A.

in the period 1991-2002,

In respect of

In support of its claim, the applicant alleges that the Commis-
sion wrongly assessed the facts and infringed the principle of
the presumption of
innocence and the claimant's rights of
defence.

— Hold the Commission Delegation in Papua New Guinea
liable for non-contractual damages and OLAF liable for
non-contractual damages in connection with Project No
8.ACP.PNG.003;

— order the Commission and OLAF to pay compensation for
damage suffered as a result of unlawful conduct in the
execution of Project No 8.ACP.PNG.003 provisionally
assessed at Euro 5 884 873,99;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns a claim for compensation for damage
suffered by the applicant company, an Italian engineering
consultancy which operated for a number of years in the
context of EU funded programmes, as a result of the conduct
of officials of
the Commission Delegation in Papua New
Guinea and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in relation
to contract
services No 8.ACP.PNG.003, which was
supported by the European Development Fund.

for

It should be noted in this regard that in December 1999 the
applicant company was awarded the contract in question to
design improvement works for nine education establishments
in a number of regions in Papua New Guinea.

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/15

The applicant company considers, together with two other
applicants, that the Community has incurred non-contractual
liability in this case as a consequence of:

— improper interference by the Commission Delegation in
Papua New Guinea in the contractual relationship between
Studio Bichara and the local Government with regard to the
contract for services at issue. That interference obliged the
applicant company to terminate the contract prematurely
and made it impossible for there to be any amicable solu-
tion to the dispute between the contracting parties.

— the conduct on the part of OLAF in the course of investiga-
tions OF/2002/0261 and OF/2002/0322. That conduct is
to be regarded as inconsistent both with OLAF's duty to
carry out its investigations in complete independence, even
in its dealings with the European Commission, and the
impartiality and the presumption of
principles of justice,
innocence of those under investigation.

Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Gargani v Parlia-
ment

(Case T-94/06)

(2006/C 121/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Giuseppe Gargani
sented by: W. Rothley, lawyer)

(Morra de Sanctis, Italy)

(repre-

paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
According to the applicant this opinion was issued without
having been put to the vote of the Legal Affairs Committee of
the European Parliament and without a decision of the Euro-
pean Parliament in plenary session having been obtained.

The applicant bases his action on an infringement of Article
121 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

Action brought on 30 March 2006 — Phildar v OHIM

(Case T-99/06)

(2006/C 121/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Phildar SA (Roubaix, France)
Baud, lawyer)

(represented by: E.

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:
Comercial Jacinto Parera SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Declare that by deciding to submit observations on a ques-
tion submitted for a preliminary ruling in Case C-305/05
pending before
the Parliament
infringed Article 121 of its Rules of Procedure;

the Court of

Justice,

— Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
(Trade
January 16, 2006 in Case R

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks and Designs) of
245/2004-2;

the Second Board of Appeal of

— subsidiarily, and if the Court decides not to annul the deci-
sion of
the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Marked (Trade Marks and
Designs) of January 16, 2006 in Case R 245/2004-2,
it
should remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for consid-
eration of the opposition against the registration of the
CTM application ‘FILDOR’ No 831 834 notably on the
basis of the earlier French word trade mark ‘FILDOR’ No
744 927 owned by the applicant;

The present action is brought in light of the fact that the Presi-
dent of the European Parliament, representing that institution
in Case C-305/05, submitted observations under the second

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener.