Case T-171/08: Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
Date: 2008-05-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), aid to refugees

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/43

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the Commission,
entered into Contract BRPR-CT-95-0099 with the defendant on
12 December 1995. The contract concerned a project on
improved quality assurance and methods of grouting post-
tensioned cables. The contract and the project came into being
within the framework of the specific programme for research
and technological development, including demonstration, in the
field of industrial and materials technologies (1).

An examination of the defendant's performance of the contract
was undertaken after completion of the contract. On the basis
of the results of that examination, the Commission decided to
demand repayment of part of the sums paid, in accordance with
the general conditions of the contract.

(1) Council Decision 94/571/EC of 27 July 1994 adopting a specific
programme for research and technological development,
including
demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies
(1994-1998) (OJ 1994 L 222, p. 19).

confirmed by letter of 7 March 2008, the defendant sent the
applicant a revised calculation of the payment to the applicant
that was still outstanding, in which part of the applicant's costs
were deemed to be ineligible for support. The applicant brought
the present action against the Commission's letter of 7 March
2008.

The applicant claims in support of its action that the contested
decision infringes the duty to give reasons since the defendant
changed the grounds for its decision on numerous occasions. In
addition, there has been an infringement of the fundamental
principle of the right to a fair hearing. Finally, the facts of the
case were assessed in a manner incompatible with the regula-
tions of the Grant Agreement and the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations.

Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v
OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)

(Case T-173/08)

(2008/C 171/83)

Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Berliner Institut für
Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

Language in which the application was lodged: English

(Case T-171/08)

(2008/C 171/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung e.V.
(Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Claus, lawyer)

Parties

Applicant: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)
(represented by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canon
Communications LLC (Los Angeles, United States)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2007 in
the form of the letter of 7 March 2008 confirming approval
of a payment
in the amount of EUR 9 215,20 in the
context of the ‘Traumatised refugees in the EU’ project by
reason of ‘Grant Agreement JAI/2004/ERF/073’ in so far as
the
than
EUR 9 215,20;

payment of more

applicant was

denied

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an
agreement on support for a project in connection with the
European Refugee Fund. By letter of 30 October 2007,

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 6 March 2008 in case R 0989/2005-1; and

— order OHIM/the other party to the proceedings before the

Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MEDTEC’
for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41 — application
No 2 885 853

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant