Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2003 in Case C-149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Officials — Action become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion, regulations for civil servants

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/3

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 22 April 2003

in Case C-149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge
Vadé v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeals — Officials — Action become devoid of purpose
— No need to adjudicate)

(2003/C 213/04)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Fourth Chamber)

of 9 April 2003

in Case C-424/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesvergabeamt): CS Communications & Systems
Austria GmbH v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsan-
stalt (1)

(Public contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review pro-
cedures for the award of public contracts — Action for
annulment of a decision of the contracting authority —
Application for interim measures — Duty or discretion of
the body responsible for review procedures to take account
of the prospects of success of the substantive claim —
Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
answer to which does not admit of any reasonable doubt)

(2003/C 213/05)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case 149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé,
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing at Brussels (lawyer: C. Amo Quiñones) — appeal
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities, First Chamber, of 9 February 2000 in Case
T-111/97 Valero Jordana et Vadé v Commission [2000] ECR-
SC IA-15; SC-II-61, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and
C. Berardis-Kayser) — the Court, composed of M. Wathelet,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 22 April 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1.

There is no need to adjudicate.

2.

The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the
costs of proceedings before both the Court of First Instance and
the Court of Justice.

( 1) OJ C 163 of 10 June 2000.

In Case C-424/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that body between CS
Communications & Systems Austria GmbH and Allgemeine
Unfallversicherungsanstalt on the interpretation of Article 2 of
Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ
1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/
EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures
for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),
the Court, composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
made an order on 9 April 2003, the operative part of which is
as follows:

Article 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989
on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the
award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the Member
States from providing that when a body responsible for review
procedures for the award of public contracts decides an application
for interim measures, it is bound or authorised to take account of the
prospects of success of an application for a decision of a contracting
authority to be set aside on the ground that it is unlawful, so long as
the national rules thus governing the adoption of those interim