CELEX: C2000/163/56
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-73/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by Nicolás Martinez Rey and Others v Council of the European Union

C 163/28                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 24 January 2000                                                        of 23 March 2000
   in Case T-179/98: José Guijarro and Others v Council (1)                in Case T-266/99: Librairie de Rome v European Parlia-
                                                                                                        ment (1)
(Officials — Interest in bringing an action — Abstract and
general interest — Measure adversely affecting officials —                 (Public service contract — Invitation to tender — Selection
                 None — Manifestly inadmissible)                           criteria — Rejection of tender — Action manifestly
                                                                                                   unfounded in law)
                            (2000/C 163/54)
                                                                                                    (2000/C 163/55)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-179/98: José Cuenda Guijarro, an official of the
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Eva                   In Case T-266/99: Librairie de Rome, established in Brussels,
Hellgren, an official of the Council of the European Union,                represented by L. Dehin and C. Bruls, of the Liege Bar, with an
residing in Brussels, Petri Samuli Laaksonen, an official of the           address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of C. Duro,
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Hans                  3 Rue de la Chapelle, v European Parliament (Agents: T. Millett
Lund, an official of the Council of the European Union,                    and A. Neergaard) — application for annulment of the
residing in Brussels, Daniel Marlier, an official of the Council of        Parliament’s decision to award to a tenderer other than the
the European Union, residing in Masnuy-Saint-Jean (Belgium),               applicant the contract for the provision of fitted kiosk premises
Maria Augusta Santos, an official of the Council of the                    for the sale of newspapers — the Court of First Instance
European Union, residing in Brussels, Agneta Sederowsky, an                (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, and
official of the Council of the European Union, residing in                 A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
Brussels, Jacqueline Willems, an official of the Council of the            an order on 23 March 2000, the operative part of which is as
European Union, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), and Noé                    follows:
Youssouroum, an official of the Council of the European
Union, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and                1. The action is dismissed.
F. Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue               2. The defendant shall pay the costs.
de Cessange, against the Council of the European Union
(Agents: F. Van Craeyenest, M. Bauer and D. Waelbroeck) —
application for the annulment of the Council decision of                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
12 January 1998 rejecting, first, the applicants’ request that
certain safety, health protection and environmental measures
at the workplace be taken in respect of the Council’s ‘Justus
Lipsius’ Building in Brussels and, secondly, the claim for
compensation in respect of non-material damage which they
claim to have suffered as a result of faults, omissions and
instances of negligence by the institution in relation to the
state of that building — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Garcia Valdecasas, President of the               Action brought on 27 March 2000 by Nicolás Martinez
Chamber, P. Lindh, and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                  Rey and Others v Council of the European Union
has given a judgment on 24 January 2000, in which it:
                                                                                                     (Case T-73/00)
1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                                    (2000/C 163/56)
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay half of
      the defendant’s costs;
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
3. Orders the defendant to pay half of its costs.
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
( 1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                               brought before the Court of First Instance on 27 March 2000
                                                                           by Nicolás Martı́nez Rey and Others, of Coruña, Spain,
                                                                           represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
                                                                           Domı́nguez Pérez, with chambers in Brussels at 19 Square de
                                                                           Meeûs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 163/29
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:           Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)
    No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                The trade mark con-           verbal mark ‘LITE’ — application
    fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain         cerned:                       No 214932
    fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
    Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters              Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 5,
    where limitations in catch are required and amending                cerned:                       29, 30, 32 and 33 (essentially
    Regulation (EC) No 66/98;                                                                         foodstuffs and beverages)
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of               Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
    Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                    fore the Board of Ap-         examiner
    27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort               peal:
    relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,
    on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council        Grounds of claim:             — Denial by the Board of Appeal
    approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone                                               of the right to a fair hearing
    VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                                                        — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                                          7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                                  40/94
                                                                                                      — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                                          7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           40/94
The pleas in law and supporting arguments are the same as
those put forward in Case T-54/00 FCPG and Others v Council.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH and
                                                                        Schuck GmbH against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG                                                 Communities
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                                 (Case T-83/00)
                         (Case T-79/00)
                                                                                                (2000/C 163/58)
                        (2000/C 163/57)
                                                                                          (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  of Konstanz, Germany, and Schuck GmbH, of Schwaig,
4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG, of Cologne (Federal                    Germany, represented by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,
Republic of Germany), represented by Maximilian Kinkeldey,              Bonn, Germany.
Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair &
Schwarthäusser, Munich (Federal Republic of Germany).
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March
— annul the decision adopted on 27 January 2000 by the                      2000;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the                — in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so
    appeal proceedings registered under number R 275/                       far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof
    1999-3;                                                                 requires the Member State Germany to withdraw the
                                                                            authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products con-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     taining norpseudoephredin;