C 61/18 EN 24.2.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicants oppose the unduly broad scope of the Com- Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Département
du Loiret against the Commission of the European Com- mission’s findings and the excessive level of the fine and put
forward, in particular, the following arguments: munities
(Case T-369/00)
— Contrary to the Commission’s findings Opel Nederland(2001/C 61/35)did not apply a general strategy vis-à-vis its dealers to
hinder or restrict all exports of new cars but conducted a
lawful policy to dissuade irregular sales to unauthorized(Language of the case: French)resellers in order to protect the integrity of its selective
distribution system.An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 4 December 2000 by the Départe-
ment du Loiret, of Orléans (France), represented by Alexandre— The applicants do not contest that Opel Nederland tookCarnelutti, of the Paris Bar.a decision to limit product allocation based on certain
sales targets. However, this unilateral decision cannot be
The applicant claims that the Court should: characterised as an agreement with its dealers to restrict
exports in violation of Article 81 EC. This decision was
— annul the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 in never implemented nor was it ever communicated to the
so far as it declares illegal, and orders the repayment of, dealers. In any event, it left dealers free to engage in
State aid amounting to FRF 48.7 million (100 million in lawful export sales of their allegedly allocated volumes.
terms of its current value) granted in the form of a
preferential price for the purchase of land;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.— The Commission erred in finding that Opel Nederland’s
bonus policy infringed 81 EC. There were no findingsthat the dealers expressly or impliedly agreed to restrictPleas in law and principal argumentstheir exports sales in reaction to the bonus policy.
Moreover, the normal dealer margin was sufficient to
The present action seeks annulment of the same Commission make export sales profitable. In any event, the bonus
decision as that forming the subject-matter of Case T-366/00 policy could not be considered restrictive of exports since
Scott Paper v Commission (
1). The applicant is one of the two supplies were never limited.
entities which granted the aid in issue.
In support of its claims, the above-mentioned Département
asserts, first of all, that the Commission has applied an — There was no agreement to discontinue exports with all
excessively narrow construction to the notion of a private the dealers of the Opel distribution network in the
investor, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the nature of Netherlands. The alleged commitments to restrict exports
the local authority, of its investment parameters and of the concern a very small number of dealers and a short
economic considerations underlying its decision to sell a parcel period of time and did not appreciably restrict inter- or
of developed industrial land. It states in that regard that, in intra-brand competition.
seeking a suitable candidate to set up a business on its territory,
a local authority necessarily includes, amongst the economic
criteria on which its analysis is based, the specific fiscal revenue
which it will receive, such as that arising from the businesstaxes and property taxes resulting from the business set up.As to the level of the fine, the applicants consider that it is
disproportionate and fails to reflect the short duration of thealleged infringement and the limited number of dealers The applicant also complains that the Commission has
included in the total costs expenditure which has manifestly involved, the lack of intent of Opel Nederland, the clear
evidence of large-scale violations of the Opel selective distri- not been incurred in the interests of Scott Paper S.A. The
specific sum in question amounts to FRF 2 372 000, relating bution system by some dealers, the limited impact on intra-
Community trade and, finally, the immediate and effective to preliminary studies.
corrective action taken by Opel Nederland at its own initiative.
Lastly, it maintains that the calculation method used by the
Commission is wrong.
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.