CELEX: C1998/234/55
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 May 1998 in Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures - Application for interim measures - Commission decision rejecting a tender)

25.7.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/27
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                  1. Dismisses the application as unfounded;
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30            2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament (Agent: Yannis
Pantalis) Ð application for annulment of the decision of           (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to
grade C 3 in the course of the 1996 promotion procedure
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998,                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in which it:
                                                                                          of 14 May 1998
                                                                   in Case T-262/97: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament not to promote                            the European Communities (1)
     the applicant to grade C 3 in the course of the 1996                (Action for damages Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
     promotions procedure;
                                                                                           (98/C 234/54)
                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                   In Case T-262/97, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,
( ) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
 1                                                                 represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3
                                                                   Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                   Richard Lyal) Ð application, in substance, for
                                                                   compensation for the damage alleged to have been caused
                                                                   to the applicant by the Commission's failure to adopt the
                                                                   interim measures he had requested in the context of a
                                                                   complaint against certain anticompetitive practices lodged
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of
                       of 9 June 1998                              6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing
                                                                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special
in Case T-176/97: Alan Hick v Economic and Social                  Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87) Ð the Court of First Instance
        Committee of the European Communities (1)                  (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
(Officials Ð Promotion Ð Official made available to                order on 14 May 1998, the operative part of which is as
work in the department in which he was previously                  follows:
employed Ð Secondment in the interests of the service Ð
                      Misuse of powers)                            1. The application         is  dismissed    as   manifestly
                        (98/C 234/53)                                   inadmissible.
                                                                   2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
In Case T-176/97: Alan Hick, an official of the Economic
and Social Committee of the European Communities,
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                    OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Economic and Social
Committee of the European Communities (Agents: MoiseÂs                                    of 26 May 1998
Bermejo Garde and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for              in Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
annulment of Decision No 439/96 A of the Economic and               Cooperation v Commission of the European Communities
Social Committee of 30 September 1996 promoting Mr J.
                                                                   (Interim measures Ð Application for interim measures Ð
to grade A 3 and appointing him Head of the Division for
                                                                             Commission decision rejecting a tender)
social, family, educational and cultural affairs within
Directorate B Ð Consultative work, and of the decision of                                  (98/C 234/55)
the same date rejecting the applicant's application for that
post Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                               (Language of the case: French)
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas
and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for                 In Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in             Cooperation, comprising the following members: Danagro
which it:                                                          Adviser A/S, established at Glostrup (Denmark), Plunkett
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
Foundation, established at Long Hanborough (United                 navigation calculations that the crew would otherwise
Kingdom), Irish Agri-Food Development Ltd, established             have to handle.
at Dublin, represented by Mia Declercq-Devisch and Kurt
Haegeman, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service         By the contested decision the Commission approved
in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue               individual aid granted by the French authorities to the
Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities                   French company Sextant, acting as project manager for
(Agent: Marie-JoseÂe Jonczy) Ð application for interim             research and development of a new FMS adapted to
measures in relation to a Commission decision of                   Airbus aircraft. Sextant is a subsidiary of Thomson CSF
17 March 1998 declaring inadmissible a tender submitted            and Aerospatiale.
by the applicant in response to an invitation to tender for
a project financed under the TACIS programme (Project
FDRUS 9701, entitled: Russia: Promoting Co-operative              The applicant is of the opinion that the Commission has
Ventures by Independent Farmers') Ð the President of the           infringed Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty by making an
Court of First Instance made an order on 26 May 1998,              incorrect assessment as to the precompetitive nature of the
the operative part of which is as follows:                         project and as to the incentive effect of the aid. Contrary
                                                                   to what the Commission asserts, the applicant believes
                                                                   that the aid should not have been approved under the
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Framework.
                                                                   The applicant further contends that, because of the
2. The decision as to costs is reserved.
                                                                   complexity of the market, the Commission should have
                                                                   opened the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By failing to do so, the Commission has infringed
                                                                   essential procedural requirements and has thus deprived
                                                                   the applicant of the opportunity to submit its comments
                                                                   on the proposed aid. If a procedure under Article 93(2)
                                                                   had been opened, the applicant would have submitted its
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Honeywell Inc. against
                                                                   observations. The applicant argues that the Commission
      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   would not have concluded that the aid was compatible
                       (Case T-59/98)                              with the Treaty if it had been duly informed of all the
                                                                   pertinent facts and implications through an Article 93(2)
                        (98/C 234/56)
                                                                   procedure.
              (Language of the case: English)                      Finally, the applicant submits that Article 190 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty has been infringed in that the Commission gave
                                                                   insufficient reasons for the contested decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998
by Honeywell Inc., represented by Bernard van de Walle
de Ghelcke, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Offices of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                   Action brought on 21 April 1998 by Van Den Bergh
                                                                   Foods Limited against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-65/98)
Ð annul Decision No. N584/97 of the Commission                                             (98/C 234/57)
    concerning aid to Sextant Avionique for the
    development of a new flight management system                                 (Language of the case: English)
    adapted to Airbus aircraft, communicated to the
    applicant by letter D/50515 of 5 February 1998; and
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1998
                                                                   by Van Den Bergh Foods Limited, represented by Malcolm
                                                                   Nicholson and Michael Rowe, with an address for service
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
                                                                   Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.
The applicant, a company incorporated under law of the
United States of America, is a leading supplier of avionics        The applicant claims that the Court should:
systems and products for the commercial, military and
space market, who developed the industry's first flight            Ð declare the Commission decision of 11 March 1998
management system (FMS'). The FMS is the centrepiece                  relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of
of an aircraft, able to control the flight from take-off all           the EC Treaty (Case Nos. IV/34.073, IV/35.436 and
the way through to landing, performing all of the complex              IV/34.395) void and annul it in its entirety;