Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2003 in Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Action for annulment)
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion

C 135/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2003

declare it compatible with the common market and the EEA
Agreement, subject
to compliance with the undertakings
proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) — the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lena-
erts, President, J. Azizi and M.
Judges; J. Palacio,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
3 April 2003, in which it:

Jaeger,

1. Annuls Commission Decision D/228078 of 8 January 2002
not to oppose the concentration between SEB and Moulinex
and to declare it compatible with the common market and the
EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the undertakings
proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) so far as
concerns the markets in Italy, Spain, Finland, the United
Kingdom and Ireland;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own

costs;

4. Orders SEB SA and De Longhi SpA to bear their own costs.

( 1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.02.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 April 2003

in Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández v Commission
of the European Communities (1)

(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative
merits — Action for annulment)

(2003/C 135/44)

(Language of the case: French)

(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the
Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Deputy
Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 April 2003, in which it:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the
applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2001 promotions procedure;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.02.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 1 April 2003

in Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-
bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance
with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second
renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —
Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)

(2003/C 135/45)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Leggiuno (Italy), represented by
B. Nascimbene and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal
Ferro) — application for annulment of
the decision of
28 September 2000 by which the authority empowered to
conclude contracts of employment rejected the complaint
lodged by the applicant seeking a declaration that the employ-
ment relationship which bound her to the Commission was a
relationship of indefinite period under a contract as a member
of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Con-
ditions of Employment of other Servants, renewed on more
than one occasion with the effects referred to in the last
paragraph of Article 8 of those conditions — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
President of the Chamber, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2003, the
operative part of which is as follows:

In Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Woluwé-Saint-Étienne (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berar-
dis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the decision of the
Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the
2001 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance

1.

2.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

The parties are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ 2001 C 95.