Case T-106/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission of the European Communities (Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning technical assistance to improve the information and communication technology system in the State Institute of Statistics of the Republic of Turkey — Application rejected — Period for bringing proceedings — Confirmatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, services contract, software

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/57

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2006 —
Staelen v Parliament

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

(Case T-32/05) (1)

(Officials — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First
Instance — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages —
No pre-litigation procedure — No direct link — Manifestly
inadmissible)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE
(represented by: F. Carlin,
Symmetochon (Marrousi, Greece)
Barrister, N. Niejahr, J. Dryllerakis, F. Spyropoulos and N. Koro-
giannakis, lawyers)

(2006/C 326/122)

Language of the case: French

Re:

Parties

Applicant: Claire Staelen (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.
Choucroun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. de Wachter
and M. Mustapha-Pacha, Agents)

Re:

the decision of

First, annulment of
the Selection Board in
Competition EUR/A/151/98, reopened following the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2003 in Case T-24/01
Staelen v Parliament [2005] ECR-SC I-A-79 and II-423, not to
enter the applicant in the reserve list for that competition and,
second, a claim for damages

Operative part of the order

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the

claims for annulment.

2. Rejects the claim for damages.

3. Orders the Parliament to pay its own costs and two thirds of the

costs incurred by the applicant.

(1) OJ C 115, of 14.5.2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 2006
— Athinaïki Techniki v Commission

(Case T-94/05) (1)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Complaint — Decision
to take no further action on the complaint — Inadmissible)

(2006/C 326/123)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Application for annulment of
the Commission's letter of 2
December 2004, informing the applicant of the decision to take
no further action on its complaint concerning State aid allegedly
granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consor-
tium in connection with the Casino Mont Parnès public
contract.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Athinaïki Techniki AE is ordered to pay all the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 —
the European
Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission of

Communities

(Case T-106/05) (1)

(Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning tech-
nical assistance to improve the information and communica-
tion technology system in the State Institute of Statistics of
the Republic of Turkey — Application rejected — Period for
bringing proceedings — Confirmatory act — Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 326/124)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepiki-
nonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (repre-
sented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer,)

Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S.
Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Tufvesson and K. Kańska, acting as Agents)

C 326/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Re:

2. The applicant shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by

the Commission.

Annulment of
the Commission's decisions not to select the
tender submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for
tenders for the provision of technical assistance for the improve-
ment of the system of Information and Communication Tech-
nologies (ICT) of the Turkish National Institute for Statistics and
of the decisions rejecting the applicant's request to renew the
decision not to short-list it.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicant shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 —
Harry's Morato v OHIM — Ferrero Deutschland
(MORATO)

(Case T-52/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Cancel-
lation of the earlier trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 326/126)

Language of the case: Italian

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2006 —
Fermont v Commission

Parties

(Case T-307/05) (1)

Applicant: Harry's Morato SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy) (repre-
sented by: N. Ferretti, G. Casucci and F. Trevisan, lawyers)

(Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Appli-
cation initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Inad-
missibility)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Negro and O.
Montaldo, Agents)

(2006/C 326/125)

Language of the case: French

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
OHIM,
Instance: Ferrero
Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt/Main, Germany) (represented by:
M. Kefferpütz, lawyer)

the Court of First

intervener before

Parties

Re:

Applicant: Alain Fermont (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: L.
Kakiese and N. Luzeyemo, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 16 December 2005 (Case R 600/2005-1),
concerning opposition proceedings Harry's Morato SpA and
Ferrero Deutschland GmbH.

Re:

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this case.

Action for damages seeking compensation for damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.