CELEX: C2000/020/43
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 1999 in Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de Gaulle v European Parliament (Application for the adoption of interim measures — Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision in its own Rules of Procedure — Political group — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

22.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 20/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 1999 L 202, p. 1)
                                                                          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                        of 8 October 1999                                 order on 25 November 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
   in Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          1. Implementation of the measure of the European Parliament of
(Official — Period within which an action must be brought                     14 September 1999, by which the Parliament adopted the
                  — Manifest inadmissibility)                                 interpretation of Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure proposed by
                                                                              the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is suspended;
                          (2000/C 20/42)
                                                                          2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, Körnerstrasse 5, 10785
Berlin, v European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for annulment of the decision of the
selection board in Competition PE/86/A refusing to admit the
applicant to the written tests in that competition and                    Action brought on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
requesting that the applicant be allowed to take part in that             PLC against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                                               ties
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras;
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                                   (Case T-219/99)
1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                                    (2000/C 20/44)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
                                                                          PLC, represented by William Wood QC and Helen Davies, of
                                                                          Brick Court Chambers, London, and William Allan and Oliver
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Black, of Linklaters, Solicitors, London, with an address for
                            INSTANCE                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                      of 25 November 1999
in Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 Gaulle v European Parliament
                                                                          — annul the contested decision in its entirety;
(Application for the adoption of interim measures —
Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision in its                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
own Rules of Procedure — Political group — Admissibility
  — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2000/C 20/43)
                                                                          The primary relief sought is the annulment of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        mission’s Decision declaring that since 1992 the applicant
                                                                          (BA) has infringed Article 82 EC by operating systems of
In Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez, residing in Montpel-            commission and other incentives with the travel agents from
lier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris, represent-       whom it purchases air travel agency services in the United
ed by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la                       Kingdom, systems which, by rewarding loyalty from the travel
Poissonnerie, Nice (France), v European Parliament (Agents:               agents and by discriminating between travel agents, have the
Gregorio Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and Hans Krück) —                 object and effect of excluding BA’s competitors from the UK
application for suspension of implementation of the decision              air transport market. Article 2 of the contested Decision
of the European Parliament dated 14 September 1999 con-                   imposed on BA a fine of £ 6,8 million for the alleged
cerning the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of                  infringements.