Case T-383/06: Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Icuna.com v Parliament
Date: 2007-01-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European television, Internet, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/31

Moreover, the applicants contend that the Commission breached
Article 253 EC as the contested decision does not provide any
statement of reasons for imposing an additional amount of
EUR 2.04 million on the applicants Aquatis France and Simplex
Amaturen + Fittings.

Finally, the applicants allege that, by imposing a separate fine
upon Aquatis France and Simplex Amaturen + Fittings in addi-
tion to the fine already imposed on each of their predecessors
and current parent companies, the Commission breached the
principle ‘non bis in idem’ according to which no one can be
condemned twice for the same offence.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines

in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)

Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Vischim v
Commission

(Case T-380/06)

(2007/C 20/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vischim Srl. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu,
K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, in

particular Article 2, paragraph 2 thereof;

— order the defendant to comply with its obligations under
Community law and provide for accurate, reasonable and
legally acceptable prospective time limits; and

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC (1), of 22 September
2006, and in particular its Article 2, paragraph 2, insofar as the
amended specification of the active substance Chlorothalonil
listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC (2) concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (hereinafter,
the ‘PPPD’) has not provided for reasonable time limits in line
with those given to other active substances under the current
review and instead provides for retroactive application of its
provisions.

The applicant claims that the Commission violated its legal
rights and legitimate expectations as a notifier and main data
submitter of Chlorothalonil within the meaning of the PPPD
and its implementing regulations, since no reasonable period
was granted before the amended specification of
the active
substance was included in Annex I during which Member States
and the applicant could prepare themselves to meet new
requirements. In that sense, the applicant submits that, instead
of allowing for an appropriate time period for its Chlorotha-
lonil-based product registrations to be properly assessed for re-
registration purposes in Member States, the contested measure
entered into force on 23 September 2006 and only prescribed
retroactive application of its provisions as of 1 September 2006
by reference to situations which already had produced legal
effects in the period up to 31 August 2006. Moreover, the appli-
cant submits that the contested measure is not in conformity
with the requirements established by the PPPD and that it lacks
sufficient statement of reasons in terms of Article 253 EC.
Finally, the applicant claims that the contested provision also
discriminates between the situation of the applicant and other
notifiers in the review process of existing active substances
without objective justification.

(1) Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, of 22 September 2006,
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specification
of the active substance chrothalonil; OJ L 263, p. 9

(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC, of July 1991, concerning the placing
of plant protection products on the market; OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1

Action brought on 19 December 2006 — Icuna.com v
Parliament

(Case T-383/06)

(2007/C 20/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Icuna.com SCRL (Braîne-le-Château, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: J. Windey and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul

the decision of

the European Parliament of 1
December 2006, accepting the tender of the firm MOSTRA
and rejecting the applicant's tender within the framework of
the call for tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/2003;

C 20/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2007

— declare that the Community is non-contractually liable and
order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the sum
of EUR 58 700 as compensation for the costs incurred in
the framework of the call for tenders, as well as an amount
for non-pecuniary damage by way of damage to reputation,
and appoint an expert to assess that damage.

— in any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs

of the present proceedings.

Action brought on 13 December 2006 — IBP and Interna-
tional Building Products France v Commission

(Case T-384/06)

(2007/C 20/49)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision of the European Parlia-
ment rejecting the applicant's tender relating to the call for
tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003,
lot 2: programme
contents, with a view to the creation of a European Parliament
web television channel. (1)

In support of its action, the applicant pleads, first, a manifest
irregularity in the procedure leading to the adoption of the
contested decision, due to the lack of competence of the author
of the measure, the infringement of Article 101 of the Financial
Regulation (2) and the infringement of Article 149 of Regulation
No 2342/2002. (3)

Secondly, the applicant claims that (a) the Parliament adopted a
decision contrary to that initially issued on 7 August 2006
awarding it the contract, without giving reasons for this change,
and (b) the selection criteria followed in the contested decision
are not those which were applied in the context of the first deci-
sion of the Parliament, and are not defined as such in the call
for tenders. The selection criteria contained therein, the princi-
ples of equal treatment and transparency and the duty to state
reasons have therefore been contravened.

(1) Contract notice:

‘European Parliament web television channel’

(OJ

2006 S 87-091412)

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

(3) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23
December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial
Regulation applicable to the general budget of
the European
Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)

Parties

Applicants: IBP Ltd (Tipton, United Kingdom) and International
Building Products France SA (Sartrouville, France) (represented
by: M. Clough, QC, and A. Aldred, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicants in
respect of the period from 23 November 2001 to 1 April
2004;

— in any event, cancel the fine imposed on the applicants or
reduce such fine by the amount considered appropriate by
the Court in all the circumstances;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Deci-
sion C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/
F-1/38.121 — Fittings, by which the Commission found that
the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed
Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European
Economic Area by fixing prices, agreeing on price lists, agreeing
on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechan-
isms for introducing price increases, allocating national markets,
allocating customers and exchanging other commercial informa-
tion.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission infringed Article 81 EC by concluding that the
applicants were party to a single, complex and continuous
infringement in breach of Article 81 EC during the period from
23 November 2001 to 1 April 2004, when the evidence before
it does not, according to the applicants, support that finding.

the

Furthermore,
the Commission,
contrary to Article 253 EC, has not provided reasons, or has
provided insufficient reasons, for its findings.

applicants

allege

that

right

the applicants claim that

the Commission has
Moreover,
infringed their
to be heard by finding infringements
without previously stating the case against the applicants in any
statement of objections or allowing the applicants to comment
prior to the adoption of the contested decision.