Case T-194/08: Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Cattin and Cattin v Commission
Date: 2008-05-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Central African Republic, European Commission, European Development Fund, appeal to the Court (EU), coffee, economic offence, redemption

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/27

— uphold the claims seeking annulment and damages put
forward by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the case, those
incurred both by the applicant company and by Mr Cattin.

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the
judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 6 March
2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, which dismissed
her action for, first, annulment of her career development report
for 2004 and, second, damages.

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas,
(paragraphs 66, 98
alleging manifest errors of assessment
and 113 of the contested judgment) and distortion of the clear
sense of evidence (paragraph 68).

Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Cattin and Cattin v
Commission

(Case T-194/08)

(2008/C 197/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: R. Cattin & Cie (Bimbo, Central African Republic)
and Yves Cattin (Cadiz, Spain) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company, specialising in production, processing
and exportation of coffee in the Central African Republic, has
been refused reimbursement via funds of the European Develop-
ment Fund (EDF) of debts which it held from the State body
‘Soutien Café’, a body created to support the price of coffee at
the time of large reductions in prices at the end of the 1980's.
The applicant company was refused reimbursement on the
ground that, according to an audit report established at the
request of the national authorities, it had probably embezzled
certain sums for the benefit of its associates. Following that
refusal, the applicant company has had to suspend all its activ-
ities and dismiss the 800 permanent employees working in its
plantations.

In support of their action, the applicants allege, firstly, a breach
of (i) their rights of the defence, since the applicant company
did not present evidence at the time the audit report which
found that there had been embezzlement was established and
(ii) of the presumption of innocence, since no evidence was put
forward to support that finding.

Next, the applicants raise a plea alleging breach of the principles
of effective judicial protection, legal certainty and the duty to
give reasons, since the applicant company was refused reimbur-
sement without the Commission having sent it any decision and
without the company having been informed formally of the
recommendations of the audit report on which that refusal was
based.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the
principles of due care and sound administration, since applica-
tions sent
to the Commission by the national authorities
concerning the applicant company's case went unanswered and
the audit report was based on incorrect figures, which meant
that a second expert opinion was required, which the Commis-
sion accepted without, however, obtaining such an opinion.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 26 May 2008 — Market Watch v OHIM
— Ares Trading (SEROSLIM)

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company a total of

EUR 18 946 139 for material loss suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company the sum

of EUR 100 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Order

the defendant

to pay Mr Cattin the sum of

EUR 150 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Add default interest to those amounts to run from the date
of delivery of the judgment in the present case until effective
payment, at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the
European Central Bank for main refinancing operations plus
2 points, such rate not to exceed 6 %;

(Case T-201/08)

(2008/C 197/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport,
Bahamas) (represented by: J. E. Korab, lawyer)