Order of the Court (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 Unfallversicherungsanstalt (Public contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures 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)
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, interpretation of the law, provision of services, public contract, works contract

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

C 213/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

measures are not
less favourable than those governing similar
domestic actions and do not make it practically impossible or
excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by Community
law.

( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 28 March 2003

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 27 March 2003

in Case C-75/02 P: Territorio Histórico de Áava —
Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia
— Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, Territorio Histórico de
Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas
Generales de Gipuzkoa and Comunidad Autónoma del
País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Appeal — State aid — Aid in the steel sector — Action for
annulment — Article 33 CS — Action brought by an intra-
State authority — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

in Case C-1/02 SA: Antippas v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (1)

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities)

(2003/C 213/07)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(2003/C 213/06)

(Language of the case: French)

(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 C-1/02 SA, Antippas, company incorporated under
Congolese law, established in Kinshasa (Democratic Republic
of the Congo), (avocat: M. Spandre) v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: M. De Pauw and B. Mar-
tenczuk) — application for authorisation to serve a garnishee
order on the Commission of the European Communities — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, P.
Jann S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 March
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

The application is dismissed.

2. Antippas is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

In Case C-75/02 P: Territorio Histórico de Áava — Diputación
Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación
Foral de Bizkaia, Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputa-
ción Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas Generales de Gipuzkoa and
Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco v
Commission of the European Communities (avocat: R. Falcón
y Tella) APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition) delivered on 11 January 2002 in Case T-77/01
Diputación Floral de Álava and Others v Commission [2002]
ECR II-81, by which the Court held inadmissible the action
brought by the appellants against Commission Decision 2001/
168/ECSC of 31 October 2000 on Spain’ corporation tax laws
(OJ 2001 L 60, p. 57), seeking to have that order set aside the
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and J.L. Buendía
Sierra) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P.
Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Gul-
mann, F. Macken and N. Coleric, and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 28 March 2003, the operative part of
which is as follows:

1.

The appeal is dismissed.