Pending cases: Schindler Holding Ltd and Others v Commission (C-501/11 P) and Kone and Others v Commission (C‑510/11 P). Cases removed from the register by order: orders of 24 April 2012 in ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs v Commission (C-516/11 P) and ThyssenKrupp Liften v Commission (C-519/11 P); orders of 8 May 2012 in ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg v Commission (C-504/11 P), ThyssenKrupp Elevator v Commission (C-505/11 P) and ThyssenKrupp v Commission (C-506/11 P).

For an insight into circumstances that have resulted in the approval or refusal of requests for the application of the accelerated procedure, made on the basis of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of 19 June 1991, as amended, see the orders made by the President of the Court of Justice, available at www.curia.europa.eu (the orders can be found under ‘Case-law’, by selecting each of the following in turn in the search form: Documents – Documents not published in the ECR – Orders – Expedited procedure).

1 By their appeal the companies Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar ask the Court to set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 17 January 2007 in Case T‑129/06 Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission, not published in ECR, (‘the order under appeal’) dismissing as inadmissible their action which sought, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 of 23 December 2005 relating to the award of public works contracts for the construction of educational facilities in the provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir (‘the contested decision ...[+++]’), and, secondly, suspension of the operation of the award procedure in question.

The operation as initially notified to the Commission raised serious competition concerns in three markets: prescription calcitonins used for treating osteoporosis in Poland, over-the-counter (OTC) topical anti-rheumatics in Germany and prescription anti-gout preparations in Denmark.

8 It is apparent from those provisions, and in particular from the use of the term ‘represented’ in the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that, in order to bring an action before the Court of First Instance, a party within the meaning of that article must use the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (order of the Court of Justice in Case C‑174/96 P Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECR I‑6401, paragraph 11; order of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 1999 in Case T‑131/99 S ...[+++]haw and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 11).

Commission orders Danish public broadcaster TV2 to pay back excess compensation for public service tasks Today the European Commission closed its State aid investigation into the State financed Danish public broadcaster TV2/DANMARK, ordering TV2 to reimburse approximately € 84.4 million plus interest of State aid.