Case T-94/06: Action brought on  13 March 2006  — Gargani v Parliament
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, President of the EP, appeal to the Court (EU), operation of the Institutions, rules of procedure

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.