Case T-10/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2006 — Girardot v Commission (Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Illegal rejection of candidature — Annulment — Reinstatement of the situation existing prior to the illegality — Fair financial compensation — Loss of the opportunity to take up a vacant post — Equitable assessment)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), job access, staff assessment

C 190/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

2. The Commission shall bear its own costs and 75 % of the appli-
cants' costs, apart from those caused by the interventions, before
the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

3. The applicants shall bear the remainder of their own costs before

the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;

1. Dismisses the actions.

4. The French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste shall bear their
own costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of
Justice.

2. Orders the applicants to pay two thirds of the costs of the main
proceedings and the whole of the costs of the interlocutory proceed-
ings.

(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998

3. Orders the Commission to pay one third of the costs of the main

proceedings.

(1) OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 —
Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und
Wirtschaft v Commission

(Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01) (1)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2006 —
Girardot v Commission

(Action for annulment — Competition — Regulation No 17
— Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 — Decision 2001/462/EC,
ECSC — Hearing Officer — Measure having binding legal
effects — Admissibility — Legitimate interest — Standing of
applicant or complainant — Client final buyer of goods or
services — Access to statements of objections — Confidential
information — Sufficient interest)

(Case T-10/02) (1)

(Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Illegal
rejection of candidature — Annulment — Reinstatement of
the situation existing prior to the illegality — Fair financial
compensation — Loss of the opportunity to take up a vacant
post — Equitable assessment)

(2006/C 190/26)

Language of the case: German

(2006/C 190/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Vienna, Austria)
(represented by:
initially M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and A.
Reidlinger, then H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) and Bank für Arbeit
und Wirtschaft AG (Vienna) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Rating, Agent)

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Claude Girardot
France)
(represented by: N. Lhoëst and É. Schietere de Lophem, lawyers
)

(L'Haÿ-les-Roses,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L. Lozana-Palacios
sented by:
and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H.
Tserepa-Lacombe, agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decisions of the Hearing Officer of 9 August
2001 and 25 July 2001, respectively, to disclose to an Austrian
political party (the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) the non-
confidential versions of the statements of objections relating to
a proceeding under Article 81 EC concerning the fixing of
banking tariffs (COMP/36.571-Österreische Banken)

Re:

Setting of the amount of fair financial compensation payable
by the Commission to Ms Girardot pursuant to the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-10/
02 Girardot v Commission (ECR-SC I-A-109 and II-483)

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets

financial

the amount of

compensation payable by the
Commission to Ms Marie-Claude Girardot pursuant to the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-
10/02 Girardot v Commission at EUR 92 785, together with
interest payable from 6 September 2004, at the rate set by the
European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two
percentage points;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 68, 13.3.2002.

throughout

such safeguards equivalent
the Community (OJ,
English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41), and Article 47 of
Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based
on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty (subsequently Article 54(3)(g)
of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC)
on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978
L 222, p. 11) and, second, for a declaration that the aforemen-
tioned provisions are invalid.

Operative part of the order:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the

Council's costs.

(1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 June 2006 —
Danzer v Council

(Case T-47/02) (1)

(Company law — Directives 68/151/EEC and 78/660/EEC —
Disclosure of annual accounts — Protection of business
secrets — Breach of fundamental rights — Legal basis —
Action for damages — Inadmissibility)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 —
Inex SA v OHIM — Wiseman (Representation of a
cowhide)

(2006/C 190/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Manfred Danzer and Hannelore Danzer
(Linz,
Austria) (represented by: initially by J. Hintermayr, M. Krüger,
F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr and P. Burgstaller, and subse-
quently by J. Hintermayr, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr, P.
Burgstaller, G. Tusek, T. Riedler and C. Hadeyer, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.
Giorgi Fort and M. Bauer, Agents)

(Case T-153/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for a figurative mark consisting of a representation of
a cowhide in black and white — Earlier national figurative
trade mark comprising in part a representation of a cowhide
in black and white — Distinctive character of an element of
a trade mark — Absence of likelihood of confusion — Rejec-
tion of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94)

(2006/C 190/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Re:

Application, first, for compensation under Article 288 EC in
respect of damage allegedly suffered by the applicants due to
the obligation to disclose certain information in the annual
accounts of the companies of which they are managers under
Article 2(1)(f) of First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9
March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which,
for the
protection of the interests of members and others, are required
by Member States of companies within the meaning of the
second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty (subsequently the
second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty, now the
second paragraph of Article 48 EC), with a view to making

Applicant: Inex SA (Bavegem, Belgium) (represented by: T. van
Innis, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, U. Pfleghar
and G. Schneider, and subsequently, G. Schneider and A.
Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Robert Wiseman &
Sons Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom)
(represented by: A.
Roughton, Barrister)