Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 289/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 29.11.2003

The applicant claims, first, that the successful tenderer received
favourable financial treatment, to the detriment of the other
tenderers.The applicantalso alleges that the successful tenderer
had privileged access to essential information. The applicant
alleges in particular that the other tenderers did not have
access to certain essential technical information on the current
status of the database for the CORDIS project.

The applicant also submits that the criteria used in the award
of the tender do not conform to those laid down in the
contract documents and that the Commission applied in a
discriminatory manner the criteria published in the contract
documents for the selection of the tender giving the best
quality/price ratio.

**Action brought on 30 September 2003 by Masdar (U.K.)**
**Ltd against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-333/03)**

(2003/C 289/66)

_(Language of the case: English)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by Masdar
(U.K.) Ltd, Eversley, Hampshire, (United Kingdom), represented
by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green, Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
order the Commission to pay to the applicant:

i) the sum of EUR 448 947,78

ii) interest on the said sum as at 31 July 2003 in the
amount of £ 98 121,24 plus interest from 1 August
2003 until the date of judgment

iii) compensation for material damage, loss of profits
and non-material damage in an amount of
£ 1 532 931,09;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

According to the applicant, its claim arises out of two TACIS
contracts between the Commission and a contractor regarding
two projects in Moldova and Russia. The contractor subcontracted with the applicant to provide some of the services.
When the applicant discovered what it considered to be
irregularities on the part of the contractor, it informed the
Commission Services. On the understanding that it would be
paid for the services rendered, the applicant carried out the
services necessary for completion of the projects covered
by the contracts. Subsequently, the Commission ceased all
payments to the contractor and issued recovery orders for
amounts already paid to the contractor.

The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure to pay the
sum of EUR 448 947,78 is wrongful and has caused the
applicant additional loss. The applicant argues that the Commission has had the benefit of the services provided by the
applicant but has not paid anyone for such services. The
applicant claims that the Commission is obliged to pay the
applicantfor the services provided on the basis ofthe principles
of unjust enrichment, gestion d’affaires, legitimate expectation
and general principles of fault liability. In addition, the
applicant claims interest and damages for loss consequential
upon the Commission’s alleged illegal failure to pay the
applicant for the services.

**Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post**
**EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-**
**ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**

**(Case T-334/03)**

(2003/C 289/67)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH,
represented by Gabriele Lindhofer.

29.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 289/33

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2003 (Case R 348/20024) in so far as if concluded that trade mark No 1 575 521
does not satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) and
(c) of Regulation No 40/94;

— order publication of Community trade mark
no 1 575 521 under Article 40 of Regulation No 40/94;

—
in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of
Appeal for determination;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark Word mark ‘EUROPREMIUM’ —
sought: application no 1 575 521

Goods or services: Goods and services in Classes 16,
20, 35 and 39 (including paper,
goods made of wood, advertising
and transport and storage)

Decision appealed to the Refusalby the examiner to register
Board of Appeal:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: — the trade mark is sufficiently
distinctive

—
there is no need to preserve
the availability of the mark
as it is not descriptive

**Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Eridania Sadam**
**S.p.A. and Others against the Commission of the European**
**Communities**

**(Case T-338/03)**

(2003/C 289/68)

_(Language of the case: Italian)_

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 25 September 2003 by Eridania

Sadam S.p.A. and Others, represented by Gualtiero Pittalis,
Ivano Vigliotti, Gian Michele Roberti, Paolo Ziotti and Alessandra Franchi, against the Commission of the European Communities.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—
annul Article 1(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1158/2003 of 30 June 2003 fixing the derived intervention price for white sugar for the 2003/04 marketing
year for all areas in Italy;

—
in the alternative, declare under Article 241 EC that
Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of
19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the
markets in the sugar sector is unlawful and inapplicable;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By the present action, the applicant companies challenge
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2003 of 30 June 2003
fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the
2003/04 marketing year (‘the contested regulation’)( [1] ). In
support of their action the applicants raise the pleas in law set
out below.

First, the applicants submit that, in several respects, the
contested regulation is in conflict with the basic regulation
adopted by the Council in the form of Regulation (EC)
No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 ( [2] ).

In particular, the applicants complain that the contested
regulation erroneously classifies Italy as a ‘deficit area’ for the
supply of sugar, thereby applying the system of derived prices
(known as ‘Regionalisation’) to Italy. That classification, based,
in the applicants’ view, on an incorrect analysis of the
economic situation, prejudices them in so far as the introduction of derived prices results in an increase in the production
costs for sugar undertakings operating in Italy. In particular,
according to the applicants, when assessing Italian domestic
supply, the Commission failed to take account of the quantities
of white sugar imported free of duty from the Balkan countries.
Those imports significantly alter the conditions in which the
common organisation of the market functions bringing about
significant imbalances which appear more serious following
the application of regionalisation to the Italian market.

The applicants therefore consider that Article 1(c) of the
contested regulation is both flawed in terms of its assumptions
and potentially contrary in its effects to the Community
principles on which the common agricultural policy is based,
the WTO rules relating to sugar and the principles of
proportionality and non-discrimination.