Case C-241/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2006 — Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for annulment, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, public contract, tendering

C 212/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

4. The Court of First Instance neither examined the distinctive
character on the basis of the goods in respect of which
registration of the mark was actually sought nor accurately
determined the overall impression of the marks. It also drew
no distinction between individual goods. The Court of First
Instance overlooked the fact that the use of design as an
indicator of origin also serves the needs of consumers: the
shape of the packaging provides them with their only possi-
bility of pre-selecting it in supermarkets where numerous
bottles with the same contents are lined up on a shelf.

(1) OJ C 108, p. 20

and a review of other irregularities in the award proce-
dure that — considered in isolation — would not be
time-barred would be permissible on the basis of the
contract price correctly determined or to be determined?

2. Should the details in a tender notice relevant to determin-
ation of the contract price be subject to any special require-
ments so as to enable the conclusion to be drawn from irre-
gularities relating to the estimated contract price that the
protection of primary law is generally precluded even if the
correctly estimated contract price exceeds
the relevant
threshold amount?

(1) OJ L 209, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches
Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2006 —
Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

(Case C-241/06)

(2006/C 212/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
State, (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2006 — Minister
voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and T. Sahin —
against the judgment of the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage in
Case AWB 04/45792

(Case C-242/06)

(2006/C 212/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Applicant: Lämmerzahl GmbH

Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

Question(s) referred

as

contracts,

1. Is it compatible with 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
by Council Directive
amended
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), in
particular Article 1(1) and (3), for a tenderer to be generally
barred from gaining access to a review of a contracting
authority's decision to award public contracts because the
tenderer wrongfully failed to raise an irregularity in the
award procedure within the time-limit laid down for that
purpose in national law, where the irregularity relates

(a) to the form of invitation to tender selected

or

(b) to the correctness of the determination of the contract
price (the estimate is obviously wrong or the method of
determination is not sufficiently transparent)

Raad van State, Netherlands

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, T.
Sahin

Questions referred

1(a).

In the light of paragraphs 81 and 84 of the judgment in
Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others
[2003] ECR I-12301, is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80
concerning the development of the Association to be
construed as meaning that an alien, a Turkish national,
who has complied with the rules for first admission and
residence in the country and from 14 December 2000 to
2 October 2002 was
legally employed by various
employers, but failed to request in due time the extension
of the period of validity of his residence permit, as a
result of which after the expiry of the permit and at the
time of the application for its extension, under national
law, he was neither legally resident nor entitled to work
in the country, can rely on that provision?