C 134/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.5.2001 ed by D. Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & INSTANCE Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and E. Paasivirta) – application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of of 15 January 2001 23 March 2000 terminating the contract concluded with the applicant relating to the Dionysos project — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, in Case T-236/00 R: Gabriele Stauner and Others President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, v. European Parliament and Commission of the European Registrar, made an order on 9 January 2001, the operative Communities part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible. (Interim relief proceedings — Framework agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the Com- 2. The applicant is to pay the costs, including those relating to the mission — Article 197 CE — Admissibility) proceedings for interim measures. (2001/C 134/49) (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-236/00 R: Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfrats- hausen (Germany), Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Den- ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE mark), Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark), Theodorus Bouwman, residing in Eindhoven (), of 10 January 2001 Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, residing in Amsterdam (Nether- lands), Mogens Camre, residing in Copenhagen, Rijk van Dam, residing in (Netherlands), Michl Ebner, residing in Case T-153/00: Spain Pharma S.A. v Commission of the in Bolzano (Italy), Christopher Heaton-Harris, residing in 1 European Communities( ) Kettering, Northamptonshire (United Kingdom), , residing in Brussels, Joost Lagendijk, residing in (Action for a declaration of failure to act — Case not Rotterdam, Nelly Maes, residing in Sinaai (Belgium), Franz- proceeding to judgment) Xaver Mayer, residing in Landau-sur-l’Isar (Germany), Franzis- ka Emilia Müller, residing in Bruck (Upper Palatinate) (Germ- (2001/C 134/48) any), Alexander Radwan, residing in Rottach-Egern (Germany), Alexander de Roo, residing in Amsterdam, Heide Rühle, residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Ursula Schleicher, residing in Munich (Germany), Inger Schöring, residing in Gävle (Sweden), (Language of the case: Spanish) Esko Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki, Bart Staes, residing in Antwerp (Belgium), Claude Turmes, residing in Esch-sur- In Case T-153/00: Spain Pharma S.A., established in Madrid, Alzette (Luxembourg), Members of the European Parliament, represented by R. Gutiérrez Sa´nchez, of the Madrid Bar, with represented by J. Sedemund et T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte, an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Berlin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Messrs Molitor, Feltgen & Harpes, 55 Boulevard de la Pétrusse, Chambers of M. di Stefano, 49 Avenue de la Gare, against v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gip- European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera et M. Berger) and pini Fournier) — application for a declaration that the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker Commission has improperly failed, in breach of the Treaty, to et X. Lewis) — application for suspension of application, first, take a decision on a complaint concerning alleged infringe- of paragraphs 17 and 19 of the Framework Agreement of ments of Articles 81 and 82 EC — the Court of First Instance 5 July 2000 on Relations between the European Parliament (Second Chamber), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, and and the Commission and, second, Annex 3 to that Framework A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an Agreement, the President of the Court of First Instance has order on 10 January 2001, the operative part of which is as made an order on 15 January 2001, the operative part of follows: which is as follows: 1. There is no need to adjudicate on the present action. 1. The application for interim relief is dismissed; 2. The parties are to bear their own costs. 2. The decision as to costs is reserved. (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.