Case T-613/97: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — UFEX and Others v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest — Logistical and commercial assistance provided to a subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector — Appeal — Referral of a case back to the Court of First Instance)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU), postal service, subsidiary

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/15

Plenary session

On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accord-
ance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(1) of the
Rules of Procedure, that where, following the designation of an
Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Proce-
dure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court of First
Instance sitting in plenary session,
the rota established in
advance, applied during the period of three years for which the
Presidents of
five Judges are
elected, in accordance with which the President of the Court is
to designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment
of the case shall be in reverse order to the order in which the
Judges rank according to their seniority in office under Article
6 of the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus
be designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it is the
Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.

the Chambers composed of

Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing applications
for interim measures

On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accord-
ance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate
Judge García-Valdecasas to replace the President of the Court of
First
Instance for the purpose of deciding applications for
interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from
dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 October
2006 to 31 August 2007.

Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers

On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance laid down criteria as
follows for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the
period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2006, in accord-
ance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

1. Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been
lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application
of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Cham-
bers of three Judges.

2. Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accord-
ance with the date on which they are registered at the
Registry, following three separate rotas, namely:

— for cases concerning application of

the competition
rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid
and the rules on trade protection measures;

— for cases concerning the intellectual property rights
referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

— for all other cases.

In applying those rotas, the First Chamber shall not be taken
into consideration at each fifth turn.

The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from
the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to
ensuring an even spread of the workload.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 —
UFEX and Others v Commission

(Case T-613/97) (1)

(State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking entrusted
with a service of general economic interest — Logistical and
commercial assistance provided to a subsidiary not operating
in a reserved sector — Appeal — Referral of a case back to
the Court of First Instance)

(2006/C 190/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Union française de l'express (UFEX)
(Roissy-en-
France, France), DHL International SA (Roissy-en-France),
(France) SNC (Gennevilliers,
Federal
(represented
France)
France)
by É. Morgan de Rivery and J. Derenne, lawyers)

express
and CRIE

SA (Asnières,

international

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by G. Rozet and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (repre-
sented by G. de Bergues, R. Abraham and F. Million, Agents),
Chronopost SA (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by V.
Bouaziz Torron and D. Berlin,
lawyers) and La Poste (Paris,
France) (represented by H. Lehman, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 98/365/EC
of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by
France to SFMI-Chronopost (OJ 1998 L 164, p. 37)

Operative part of the order

1. Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning
alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost
is
annulled in so far as that decision finds that neither the logistical
and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary,
SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State
aid to SFMI-Chronopost;

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)