Traduction de «No contest » (Anglais → Français) :

In consequence, having regard too to the fundamental importance that must attach, as indicated in paragraphs 64 and 65 above, to observance of the rights of the defence in the procedure preceding the adoption of a decision such as the contested decision, the General Court did not err in law in holding, at paragraphs 39 and 43 of the judgment under appeal, that the Council had not established that the contested decision had so urgently to be adopted that it was impossible for that institution to notify the PMOI of the new evidence adduced against it and to allow the PMOI to be heard before the contested decision was adopted.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that, at paragraph 39 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance distorted the evidence referred to at paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the contested judgment which the appellant produced in support of its application, by holding, quite illogically, that the evidence related only to distinctiveness acquired through use for the purposes of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, with the result that the Court of First Instance left it out of account.

In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance was entitled, at paragraph 39 of the contested judgment, to hold, without distorting the evidence summarised at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, that that evidence failed to show that the marks in question had distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, and that it was only capable of establishing that those marks could become distinctive in consequence of the use made of them for the purposes of Article 7(3) of that regulation.

Secondly, paragraph 39 of the contested judgment shows that the Court of First Instance considered the evidence summarised at paragraphs 21 and 22 of the contested judgment, but rejected it as not permitting the distinctive character of the marks in question to be established for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

design contests within the meaning of Directive 2003/./EC [coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors] which are organised by contracting authorities exercising one or more of the activities referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of that Directive and are organised for the pursuit of such activities; nor shall it apply to contests excluded from the scope of this Directive; However, this Directive shall continue to apply to design contests awarded by contracting authorities carrying out one or more of the activities referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2003/./EC [coordinating the procur ...[+++]ement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors] and awarded for those activities, insofar as the Member State concerned takes advantage of the option referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 72(1) thereof to defer its application.

Before launching the 2002-2003 contest, however, given the limited number of participating schools in 2001/2002 (less than 2000), the Commission has sought to determine whether certain elements of the contest should be modified, or whether it had to be completely revamped or possibly abandoned altogether if no alternative solutions could be found to improve the cost/efficiency ratio for the contest.