Case T-340/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU programme, Greece, action for annulment (EU), cultural promotion, project of common interest, termination of a contract

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/57

Appeal brought on 4 September 2007 by Irène Bianchi
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 28 June 2007 in Case F-38/06, Bianchi v European
Training Foundation

(Case T-338/07 P)

(2007/C 269/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Irène Bianchi (Turin, Italy) (represented by M.-A Lucas,
lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Christian Potschak — Bavaria Aquaristik

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
(Trade

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2007 (R 214/2006-1);

— Reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
in respect of the Community trade mark ‘Panorama’ (Com-
munity trade mark 2 771 087);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Other party to the proceedings: European Training Foundation

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought by the appellant

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of
invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Panorama’ for goods
in Classes 11, 16 and 20 (Community trade mark 2 771 087).

— Annul the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Civil

Service Tribunal of 28 June 2007 in Case F-38/06;

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

— Uphold the forms of order sought by the applicant at first

instance;

— Order the European Training Foundation to pay the costs of

both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the appellant claims that the Tribunal
failed to take into account or misunderstood certain facts and
that that led to an erroneous assessment of the facts contrary to
the second paragraph of Article 25 and Article 26 of the Staff
Regulations. She also claims that the Tribunal infringed Com-
munity law and,
in particular, procedural rules, by distorting
evidence submitted by the applicant. Finally, she relies on a plea
alleging a failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons
and an error of law resulting from an alleged failure to take into
account, or distortion of, the facts or the evidence adduced in
support thereof, and an erroneous finding of fact.

Applicant for the declaration of
Bavaria Aquaristik.

invalidity: Christian Potschak —

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application
for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the
Cancellation Division and in part of the declaration of invalidity
of the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), since the Community trade mark ‘Panorama’ is
not purely descriptive. In addition, pursuant to Article 7(1)(d) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the indication ‘Panorama’ has not
become customary and a mere generic term.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Juwel Aquarium
v OHIM — Potschak — Bavaria Aquaristik (Panorama)

Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Evropaïki
Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-339/07)

(2007/C 269/103)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

(Case T-340/07)

(2007/C 269/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:
Germany) (represented by: D. Jestaedt and G. Rother, lawyers)

Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG (Rotenburg,

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki (Athens, Greece) (represented by:
N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 269/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Form of order sought

Defendant: Council of the European Union

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of
EUR 172 588,62 which constitute unpaid eligible costs
incurred by the applicant
in the framework of contract
No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873;

— order the Commission to pay the symbolic amount of
EUR 1 000 corresponding to the damage suffered at its
fame and goodwill;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this applica-
tion.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application, pursuant to Articles 238 EC and 235 EC, seeks
compensation for damages caused by the decision of
the
Commission of 16 May 2003 to terminate the contract
No EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 signed with the Commission,
concerning the project
‘e-Content Exposure and Business
Opportunities’ (‘EEBO’) to be carried out in the framework of
the multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the devel-
opment and use of European digital content on the global
networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information
society
and M.
Marthinsen in the implementation of the project as external
consultants.

and involving M.

(2001-2005)

Fischer

In support of its claims the applicant argues that the contracting
authority (DG INFSO) decision to terminate the contract
contains evident errors of assessment resulting in failure to fulfil
it is submitted that the
its contractual obligations. Moreover,
contested decision was taken in violation of the principles of
good administration and transparency and that on several occa-
sions, specific Commission agents failed to eliminate alleged
conflicts of interest. In light of the above, the applicant claims
to be entitled to compensation for the services rendered as well
as to eligible costs incurred in the framework of the execution
of the contract including interest from the date these amounts
became due.

Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Sison v Council

(Case T-341/07)

(2007/C 269/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: J. M. Sison (Utrecht, The Netherlands) (represented by:
J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz, D.Gürses, W. Kaleck, lawyers)

Form of order sought

— Partially annul as

specified hereafter, on the basis of
Article 230 EC, Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June
2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed
against
and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC
and 2006/1008/EC and more specifically:

certain persons

— annul Article 1 point 1.33 of the said decision which reads:
‘Sison,
in
Jose Maria (a.k.a. Armando Liwanag, a.k.a.
charge of the Communist Party of the Philippines including NPA)
born 8.2.1939 in Cabugao, Phippines’;

Joma,

— annul partially Article 1 point 2.7 of said decision insofar as
it mentions the name of the applicant: Communist Party of
the Philippines,
including New Peoples Army (NPA),
Philippines, linked to Sison Jose Maria C. (a.k.a. Armando
Liwanag, a.k.a. Joma, in charge of the Communist Party of
the Philippines including NPA);

— declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241 EC, Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on
specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ, L 344,
p. 70);

— order the Community to compensate the applicant on the
basis of Article 235 and 288 EC in an amount to be fixed at
EUR 291 427,97 plus EUR 200,87 every month until
pronouncement of the judgment of the Court,
including
interests from October 2002 until the payment in full;

— require the Council to bear the costs of suit.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment, pursuant
to Article 230 EC, of Council Decision
2007/445/EC (1), of 28 June 2007, implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities with a
repealing Decisions
view to
terrorism and
combating
2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC,
this decision
includes Professor Jose Maria Sison. In addition, the applicant
seeks a declaration on the basis of Article 241 EC that Council
Regulation No 2580/2001 is illegal, as well as a request for
compensation, pursuant to Article 235 EC and 288 EC, for the
damages allegedly incurred.

insofar as

In support of
following grounds:

its claims,

the applicant puts

forward the

that

the Council allegedly infringed
The applicant claims
Article 253 EC with regards to its statement of reasons moti-
vating its decision. In this regard, the applicant submits that the
Council committed a manifest error of assessment when