Case T-74/07: Action brought on 12 March 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU initiative, European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, Germany, Lorraine, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, action for annulment (EU), operational programme, regional cooperation

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.