Case T-71/07: Action brought on 9 March 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European television, Internet, action for annulment (EU), contract, invitation to tender

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/53

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 9 March 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parlia-
ment

the Shipbuilding Regulation (2),

The present application is directed against the Commission's
decision of 4 July 2006 on State aid which Italy is planning to
implement for Cantieri Navali Termoli S.p.A (No C 48/2004 (ex
No 595/2003)) (1), by which it classed as State aid not compa-
tible with the common market the operating aid, provided for
in Article 3 of
Italy
planned to give the applicant in respect of Ship C.180 (ex
the ship's
C.173), and forbade the 10-month extension of
the delays
delivery limit, on the ground that the causes of
invoked by the applicant
the events of
11 September 2001 in New York, the need for technical modifi-
cations, the occurrence of natural disasters) failed to satisfy the
second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the Shipbuilding Regu-
lation.

(the impact of

that

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

(a) Procedural defect, in the form of an insufficient statement of

reasons in respect of the following findings:

— that the events of 11 September had no causal link with
the present case: by contrast with the cruise ship ship-
building sector,
the shipbuilding sector in which the
applicant is active — that is to say, the petro-chemical
tanker shipbuilding sector — was found to have suffered
no disruption on account of those events;

— that it has not been shown that the natural disasters
is
which struck the territory in which the applicant
active played a causal role;

(Case T-71/07)

(2007/C 95/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Icuna.Com SCRL (Braine-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 31 January
2007, annulling the tender procedure EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/
2006/0003, in so far as concerns lot 2;

— declare that the Community is non-contractually liable and
order the European Parliament to pay compensation to the
the
applicant for all the damage suffered as a result of
contested decision and to appoint an expert to assess that
damage;

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

of the present proceedings.

— the findings concerning the need to introduce technical

Pleas in law and main arguments

modifications to the construction.

(b) Manifest error in the assessment of the facts adduced by
way of evidence, confirmed by the Italian State, of
the
including the
the programme of works,
disruption of
unwarranted distinction drawn between chemical markets
and other shipping sectors for the purposes of applying the
Community legislation in question, as well as the biased
interpretation of
from the
Clarkson Research Institute — moreover, an interpretation
in the abstract and out of context — to which decisive
importance was attributed, without practical checks being
carried out and substantiated by documentary evidence.

the November 2003 report

(c) Misuse of powers, given the failure to determine, on the
basis of facts and by reference to the characteristics and
circumstances of the individual case, whether the requested
extension of only 10 months was likely to affect trade
between Member States, and thus to assess the compatibility
of the operating aid with the competition rules of the Com-
munity.

(1) OJ L 283, 28.12.2006, p. 53.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 establishing new rules on aid

to shipbuilding (OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1).

procedure

EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003,

By decision of 1 December 2006, the European Parliament
rejected the applicant's tender submitted in the context of the
tender
lot 2:
programme contents, with a view to the creation of a European
Parliament web television channel (1) and entered into a contract
with another tenderer. That decision was the subject of an
action for annulment brought by the applicant in the Court of
First Instance on 19 December 2006 (2). In the context of inter-
locutory proceedings, the President of the Court of First Instance
ordered, with interim effect, and in so far as the Parliament had
already concluded the contract in accordance with the decision
of 1 December 2006, the suspension of the operation of the
contract. Following the hearing held in the interlocutory
proceedings, the Parliament adopted the contested decision on
31 January 2007, by which it annulled the tender procedure at
issue in so far as that procedure concerns lot 2.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
By the first plea it is alleged that the contested decision was
unlawful, owing to the lack of competence of the author of the
act and the infringement of Article 101 of the Financial Regu-
lation (3). The applicant claims that no provision of Community
law authorises the contracting authority to annul the award of a
procurement contract after the signature of the contract with
the successful tenderer. Moreover,
it asserts that even if the
defendant were competent to adopt the contested decision on
the basis of Article 101 of the Financial Regulation, that provi-
sion does not authorise it to proceed to the partial annulment
of the tender procedure.

C 95/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

By the second plea, the applicant asserts that the contested deci-
sion is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, in so far as it does
not make it possible to understand the reasons which led the
defendant to adopt such a measure, or the legal basis on which
it is founded or the reason for which the tender procedure was
partially annulled (that is, in respect of lot 2 only).

In addition to the annulment of the decision of 31 January
2007, the applicant claims compensation for all the damage it
has suffered as a result of that decision.

(1) Contract notice:

‘European Parliament web television channel’

(OJ

2006 S 87-091412).

(2) Case T-383/06 Icuna.Com v Parliament, OJ 2007 C 20, p. 31.
(3) 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).

Action brought on 12 March 2007 — Federal Republic of
Germany v Commission

(Case T-74/07)

(2007/C 95/108)

Language of the case: German

kind. It argues in particular that the deviations from the indica-
tive financing plan do not represent a significant alteration of
the plan. The applicant claims that, even if the plan were to
have been significantly altered, the Commission should agree to
that alteration.

In addition, the applicant maintains that insufficient reasons
were given for the reduction. In particular, it claims that there is
no justification for the failure to apply the rule of flexibility in
the ‘Guidelines on the financial closure of operational measures
(1994 — 1999) of the structural funds’ (SEC(1999) 1316).

If it were to be accepted that provisions allowing a reduction
exist, the applicant argues that defendant failed to exercise the
discretion afforded to it in relation to the specific programme.
According to the applicant,
the Commission should have
considered whether a reduction in the European Regional Devel-
opment Fund contribution appeared reasonable.

Lastly, the applicant claims that there was an infringement of
the principle of partnership.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) 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 1988 L
374, p. 1).

Parties

Applicant): Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M.
Lumme and C. Blaschke, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 7271 final of
27 December 2006 on the reduction of the period of the
financial contribution of the European Regional Develop-
ment Fund granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2271 to
the Operational Programme under the Community initiative
INTERREG II in the Saarland, Lorraine and Western Palati-
nate regions in Germany,

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the contribution of

By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the period
of
the European Regional Development
Fund to the Operational Programme for North-Rhine West-
phalia under the Community initiative INTERREG II in the Saar-
land, Lorraine and Western Palatinate regions.

In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), on the ground
that it contains no provisions allowing for a reduction of that

Action brought on 8 March 2007 — IXI Mobile v OHIM —
Klein (IXI)

(Case T-78/07)

(2007/C 95/109)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: IXI Mobile, Inc (Redwood City, United States) (repre-
sented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jochen
und Eckhard Klein GbR (Olching, Germany)

Form of order sought

— The decision of

the Second Board of Appeal dated
11 January 2007 in Case R 796/2006-2 dismissing the
appeal shall be annulled;

— the Office and the other party shall bear their own costs and

pay those of the applicant.