CELEX: C2001/303/31
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-171/01: Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de l'Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe against Commission of the European Communities

C 303/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.10.2001
Trade mark or sign             Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,                the performance of the INFORMS contract; consequently,
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’,                   order it to pay to IDATE the sum of Euros 503 662 by
sition in the opposition       registered for goods in Class 3                 way of damages;
proceedings:
Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition and           —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the whole of
sition Division:               party bringing opposition pro-                  the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the
                               ceedings ordered to pay costs                   present action.
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal and appel-
Appeal:                        lant ordered to pay costs
Grounds of claim:              Contrary to what is stated in the         Pleas in law and main arguments
                               contested decision, there is likeli-
                               hood of confusion between the
                               Community trade mark and the
                               trade marks of which the appli-           The applicants states that in the context of the Community
                               cant is the proprietor, since the         Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme it
                               differences between them to not           concluded a contract (Contract No 45504) concerning the
                               allow the consumer to differen-           INFORMS project (‘Dissemination of EuroISDN Benefits for
                               tiate between them.                       SMEs’) under which it agreed to organise, throughout the
                                                                         Member countries of the European Union, seminars aimed at
                                                                         informing and advising small and medium sized undertakings
                                                                         on the possible advantages of using the EuroISDN. In view of
                                                                         the size of the project, the contract called for the participation
                                                                         of subcontractors (‘partners’). Under the above contract, the
                                                                         Commission agreed to contribute, at the level of 50,85 %, to
                                                                         the financing of the total allowable costs borne under the
                                                                         contract, which include subcontracting costs.
Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Initially the Commission paid its contribution in respect of all
                                                                         the costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under
                         (Case T-171/01)                                 the above contract, but after an audit of the contract it claimed
                                                                         from the applicant a certain amount of the sum paid on the
                                                                         ground that a part of the subcontracting costs was not covered
                         (2001/C 303/31)                                 by the concept of allowable costs in as much as it had not
                                                                         actually been paid by the applicant to the subcontractors but
                   (Language of the case: French)                        is the subject matter of a set-off.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant disputes that interpretation and submits that, as
European Communities on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de                  regards the subcontracting costs borne under the INFORMS
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe, estab-                contract, it was merely an intermediatory between the Com-
lished in Montpellier (France), represented by Mr Hugues                 mission and the other partners, since it merely paid back
Calvet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               directly to the ‘partners’, at a rate of 50,85 % of the costs borne
                                                                         by them, the sums paid by the Commission by way of
                                                                         Community finance of the subcontracting in the INFORMS
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              project, which explains why all the subcontracting costs were
                                                                         invoiced to it and why it set off the amount corresponding to
                                                                         the financing which each individual ‘partner’ had to raise
—     declare and hold that ‘allowable costs’ within the meaning
                                                                         (the remaining 49,15 %). The applicant submits that the
      of Article 1.2 of Annex II to contract No 45504
                                                                         Community contribution must be calculated on the total cost
      concluded between the Commission and IDATE on
                                                                         actually borne under the INFORMS contract, which means, as
      28 March 1996 covers the whole of the costs invoiced to
                                                                         regards subcontracting, the total cost borne by the ‘partners’.
      IDATE by the ‘partners’ under that contract and, therefore,
                                                                         That amount corresponds to the total costs invoiced to the
      that the Commission is not entitled to claim from IDATE
                                                                         applicant, since, in that area, it merely centralised the accounts
      reimbursement of the sum of Euros 503 662 under the
                                                                         and played the role of intermediatory with regard to the
      above contract or, more generally, any sum at all;
                                                                         Commissions contribution.
—     in the alternative, declare and hold that the Commission
      infringed its duty of good faith and its duty to inform
      IDATE and thereby committed breaches of contract in