Case T-396/06: Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Commission v TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), exchange of information, industrial building, leather, location of industry, termination of a contract

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/33

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.

Action brought on 16 December 2006 — DOW AgroS-
ciences v EFSA

(Case T-397/06)

(2007/C 42/58)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Commission v
TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz

Applicant: DOW AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom)
(represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Parties

(Case T-396/06)

(2007/C 42/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Šimerdová, R.Bierwagen (lawyer))

Defendant: TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz
GmbH

Form of order sought

— order

the

defendant

to

reimburse

the

EUR 32,440.80 plus 4 % interest with effect
30 November 1999;

applicant
from

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant concluded an agreement on Community activities
in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 — 1998) (1), in which
it was agreed that the Court of First Instance would have juris-
diction over disputes connected with this agreement. The
subject of the project was the construction and commissioning,
on a trial basis, of a leather drying plant.

The Commission terminated this agreement by letter of
18 February 1999, on the ground that no proper final report
was submitted to it. The applicant submits, in this connection,
that the statements of accounts presented to it by the defendant
subsequently were only partially approved because a number of
documents were missing. The remaining amount has been
demanded by the applicant on several occasions and is the
subject of the present action.

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

— Order the annulment of EFSA Conclusion titled ‘Conclusion
regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the
active substance Haloxyfop-R’;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the
damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and
in the meantime, to hold at this stage by interlocutory state-
ment that the defendant is obliged to compensate the appli-
cant for the damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing
of
the amount of compensation either by agreement
between the parties or by the Court in the absence of such
an agreement;

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

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant
are similar to those relied on in Case T-311/06 FMC Chemical
and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA.

Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Unicredito
Italiano SpA v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds
(1 Unicredit)

(Case T-398/06)

(2007/C 42/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

(1) Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a
specific programme for research and technological development,
including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to
1998) (OJ 1998 L 334, p. 87).

Parties

Applicant: Unicredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by:
G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)