Case T-19/07: Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission
Date: 2007-01-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), industrial counterfeiting, intellectual property, invitation to tender, machine translation, provision of services, software

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/21

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested
decision infringes the Commission's authorising decision K(95)
1739 of 27 July 1995.

it submits that there is an infringement of Article
Moreover,
24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), as the conditions for reduc-
tion are not satisfied. It also submits that the departures from
the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant
change of the program.

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant's standard costs.

Grounds and principal arguments

The applicant stood for election to the European Parliament in
the European Parliament elections which were held on 13 June
2004 in Austria.

Even if there were a significant change of the program, the
applicant submits that the Commission previously agreed to a
flexible application of the indicative financing plans by virtue of
its Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures
(1994-1999) from the Structural Funds (SEK (1999) 1316).

By the present action, he challenges the decision of the Euro-
pean Parliament of 28 April 2005, according to which the
applicant's challenge to the validity of the mandate of one of its
Members is to be regarded as unfounded.

On the assumption that the conditions for a reduction are satis-
fied, the applicant complains that the defendant failed to use its
discretion in relation to the specific program. The Commission
should have considered whether a reduction of the ERDF assis-
tance was proportionate.

In support of his claim, the applicant submits in particular that
the Austrian rules on allocation of preferential votes are incom-
patible with Article 1 of the Act concerning the election of the
representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage (1)
and are thus contrary to Community law.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying
down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds
between themselves and with the operations of the European Invest-
ment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374,
31.12.1988, p. 1).

(1) OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 5.

Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran
Luxembourg v Commission

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v Euro-
pean Parliament

(Case T-18/07)

(2007/C 69/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case T-19/07)

(2007/C 69/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg (represented by:
J.-P. Spitzer and E. de Boissieu, lawyers)

Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W.
L. Weh, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Parliament to declare the mandate

of one of its Members valid, by reason of its nullity;

— order the immediate cessation of the acts of infringement
and of disclosure by the European Community, acting
through the Commission;

C 69/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.3.2007

— order the confiscation of all support material held by the
Commission and by the company GOSSELIES on which are
reproduced
developments
carried out by GOSSELIES from the EC-SYSTRAN Unix and
SYSTRAN Unix versions in fraud of SYSTRAN's rights and
its delivery up to SYSTRAN, or, at the very least, its destruc-
tion under the control of an officer of the Court;

information technology

the

— order

the European Community,

acting through the
Commission, to pay damages to compensate for the damage
suffered by the applicants as a result of the infringement
committed by the Commission and, particularly, by the DGT
in the performance of its duties;

— such damages are:

— for SYSTRAN Luxembourg, EUR 1 531 000;

their know-how to the party awarded the contract. They claim
that since the carrying-out of the tasks required by the call for
tenders consists, among other things, of effecting alterations and
adaptations to the system originally conceived by SYSTRAN, it
at least requires its prior agreement. They maintain, therefore,
that by not having required such agreement, the Commission is
guilty of infringement of the intellectual property rights relating
to the SYSTRAN system and, consequently, of disclosure of the
applicants' know-how in breach of Article 4 of Directive
91/250/EEC (2) as transposed into the national legal systems.

that

then submit

the infringement of

The applicants
the
SYSTRAN software program and the disclosure of their know-
how are wrongful acts which incur the Community's liability
under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288
EC. They claim also that those wrongful acts caused damage
which should be made good by the Commission.

— for SYSTRAN SA, EUR 47 014 000 subject to addition,

and EUR 2 000 000 for non-material damage;

(1) Call for tenders No 2003/S 191-171556 (OJ 2003 S 191).
(2) Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protec-

tion of computer programs (OJ L 122, 1991, p. 42).

— order the Court's decision to be published, at the Commis-
in specialist journals, reviews and internet

sion's expense,
sites of SYSTRAN's choice;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By user licence agreements relating to the SYSTRAN machine
translation software program concluded between the applicants'
predecessors in title and the Commission, the latter obtained the
right to use the software program for its own needs and for
those of the European authorities. The applicants submit that
the agreements did not assign any of the intellectual property
rights in the SYSTRAN software program to the Commission.
From 1999 to 2002, SYSTRAN,
subsidiary
SYSTRAN Luxembourg, brought about, for the Commission, the
migration to the new system of exploitation. The contract
signed for that purpose with the Commission provided that the
Commission's entire translation system would remain its prop-
erty, ‘without prejudice, however, to any pre-existing intellectual
and industrial property rights’.

through its

In October 2003, the Commission published a call for tenders
for the award of a contract relating to the ‘maintenance and
linguistic enhancement of the European Commission's machine
translation service and associated services’ (1). The applicants did
not participate
in that procedure. SYSTRAN nevertheless
submitted its reservations on the subject-matter of the call for
tenders and the ensuing contract since, in its submission, it was
liable to infringe its intellectual property rights in the software
program.

In this action,
the
contract to a company other than SYSTRAN infringes, in itself,
their intellectual property rights and necessitates disclosure of

the applicants claim that

the award of

Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by the European
Commission against the judgment of
the Civil Service
Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05
Chatziioannidou v Commission

(Case T-20/07 P)

(2007/C 69/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (Brussels,
Belgium), (represented by K. Hermann and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Eleni Chatziioannidou (Auderghem,
Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14

November 2006 in Case F-100/05;

— dismiss the action brought by Mrs Chatziioannidou;