Case C-189/06 P: Appeal brought on  13 April 2006  by TEA-CEGOS, SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on  14 February 2006  in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS, SA, STG SA and GHK Consulting Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), appeal, award of contract, contract, foreign policy, invitation to tender, technical cooperation

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/13

Appeal brought on 12 April 2006 by Schneider Electric
SA against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) made on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03,
Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-188/06 P)

(2006/C 165/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Schneider Electric SA (represented by A. Winckler, I.
Girgenson and M. Pittie, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— Set aside, in accordance with Article 225(1) EC and Article
61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities, the order made by the Court of First Instance
on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric SA v
Commission of the European Communities;

— Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a deci-

sion on the substance of the case;

of the present case, the decision of 4 December 2002 was in
any event liable to give rise to an action. Any other interpreta-
tion would lead to a veritable denial of justice.

Finally,
the decision to close proceedings may also be the
subject of an action for annulment, on the same basis as any
decision whereby the Commission significantly alters the legal
situation of the affected party.

(1) Commission Decision of 4 December 2002 on opening the close
examination phase in respect of the merger operation between
Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M. 2283-Schneider/Legrand II)
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L
395, p. 1)

Appeal brought on 13 April 2006 by TEA-CEGOS, SA and
Services techniques globaux (STG) SA against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber)
delivered on 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05
and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS, SA, STG SA and GHK
Consulting Ltd v Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case C-189/06 P)

(2006/C 165/23)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the order misinterprets the relevant
facts and is vitiated by errors of law.

Parties

Firstly, contrary to what the Court of First instance maintains,
the transfer of Legrand to the Wendel/KKR consortium did not
occur ‘spontaneously’ and did not ‘become irrevocable’ before
the decision of 4 December 2002 (1) was taken. In any event,
the fact that the operation was abandoned did not deprive
Schneider of its interest in bringing proceedings against the
decision.

the decision of 4 December 2002 constitutes in
Secondly,
the
reality a prohibition decision, particularly in light of
instructions given by the Court of First
Instance to the
Commission. Indeed, in its judgment of 22 October 2002 in
Schneider v Commission, the Court of First Instance clearly stated
that the Commission was to resume the control procedure
from the statement of objections stage.

Thirdly, on the assumption that the decision of 4 December
2002 does indeed constitute a decision to open Phase II, it is
still amenable to an action for annulment. Indeed, in so far as it
produces adverse effects, a decision taken on the basis of
Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation No 4064/89 (2) may be the subject
of an action for annulment. In the very specific circumstances

Appellants: TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG)
SA (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: GHK Consulting Ltd, Commis-
sion of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of 14 February 2006 of the Court of
First Instance in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05;

— consequently, grant the appellants the relief they claimed at

first instance and, therefore,

— annul the decision of 12 October 2005 rejecting the candi-
dature and bid of the TEA-CEGOS consortium and with-
drawing the decision awarding the framework contract to
the TEA-CEGOS consortium under the call
for tenders
EuropeAid — 2/119860/C-LOT No 7;

C 165/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

— annul all the other decisions taken by the defendant under
that call for tenders following the decision of 12 October
2005 and,
the award decisions and the
contracts concluded by the Commission implementing
those decisions;

in particular,

— order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and

on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants base their appeal on breach of Community law
by, and on procedural irregularities before, the Court of First
Instance. The appellants submit that the Court of First Instance
disregarded the principle of legal certainty,
its obligation to
state reasons and the principle of sound administration and
distorted the evidence.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Lecce — Sezione distaccata di Gallipoli — lodged on
14 April 2006 — Criminal proceedings against Aniello
Gallo and Gianluca Damonte

Appeal brought on 24 April 2006 by Société des Produits
Nestlé SA against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 22 February 2006 in
Case T-74/04 Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM), intervener: Quick restaurants SA

(Case C-193/06 P)

(2006/C 165/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (represented by: D.
Masson, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Quick
restaurants SA

(Case C-191/06)

(2006/C 165/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Form of order sought

— Set aside the CFI judgment of the Court of First Instance of

22 February 2006; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs in their entirety

Referring court

Tribunale di Lecce — Sezione distaccata di Gallipoli

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties to the main proceedings

Aniello Gallo and Gianluca Damonte

Question referred

Is Article 4(4 bis) of Law No 401/89 incompatible — with
resultant effects on the domestic legal system — with the prin-
ciples laid down in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty on
establishment and freedom to provide cross-border services,
also in light of the conflict between the interpretations in the
decisions of the European Court of Justice (in particular in the
judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-
13031) and decision No 23271/04 of the Suprema Corte di
Cassazione a Sezioni Unite (United Chambers of the Supreme
Court of Cassation)? In particular, clarification is sought as to
the applicability of the criminal provisions set out in the charge
brought against Aniello GALLO and Gianluca DAMONTE in
the Italian State.

According to the applicant the Court of First Instance made an
error of law in that it failed to assess the trade mark in question
in its entirety and in concreto, whereas the trade mark in ques-
tion is composed of a particularly distinctive character and its
name, the figurative and verbal elements of that complex trade
mark cannot be separated in this instance.

The Court of Instance also disregarded the provisions of Article
8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 10 December
1993 on the Community trade mark (1) by failing to take
account, when assessing the likelihood of confusion, of all the
relevant elements in question, as regards both the trade mark
sought by the applicant and the word mark of the intervener.

Finally, by examining only some of the rights invoked by the
intervener in its opposition, the Court of First Instance disre-
garded the rules applicable to trade mark oppositions.

(1) OJ 1994 L 11 p. 1