ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
23.12.2000 EN C 372/11 Official Journal of the European Communities
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Action brought on 18 September 2000 by Verde Sport
SpA and Others against Commission of the European
Communities
of 5 October 2000(Cases T-274/00 and T-296/00)
(2000/C 372/23)
in Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe v Commission of the
European Communities (1)
(Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-(Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Delay in itsties was brought before the Court of First Instance of thedrafting)European Communities on 18 September 2000 by Verde
Sport SpA and Others, represented by Alfredo Bianchini, of
the Venice Bar.
(2000/C 372/22)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC of 25 No-
vember 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by
way of relief from social security contributions under(Language of the case: French)Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;
— in the alternative, annul the abovementioned decision in
so far as it requires recovery of the relief granted;In Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Orp-Jauche— order the Commission to pay the costs.(Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and
V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion FiduciairePleas in law and main argumentsSARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in B. Wägenbaur) — application, first, for annulment of the
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1). A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure and,
second, for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
(1) Not yet published.M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio Gonza ´lez, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to
grade A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure isannulled;Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Manuel Francis-
co Caballero Montoya against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities2. The remainder of the application is dismissed;
(Case T-303/00)
3. The Commission shall bear the costs.
(2000/C 372/24)
(Language of the case: Spanish)(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 September 2000 by ManuelFrancisco Caballero Montoya, residing in Brussels represented
by Juan Ramo ´n Iturriagagoitia.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/29

Action brought on 16 July 2004 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., and Enviro Tech International, Inc., against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-291/04)

(2004/C 273/58)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 2004 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom and Enviro Tech International, Inc., Illinois, USA, represented by Mr C. Mereu and Mr K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

I. partially annul Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ L 152, p. 1) with respect to the listing of nPB as a highly flammable (R11) and a Category 2 substance for reproductive toxicity (R60);

II. declare the Commission liable for damages suffered by the applicants to date and pending these proceedings as a result of the Commission's unlawful conduct, including but not limited to its denial of the applicants' request and related adoption of the contested decision, and to compensate the applicants for such damages in the provisional amount of EUR 350 000;

III. declare the Commission liable for imminent losses and damages foreseeable with sufficient certainty, even if such losses and damages cannot be precisely assessed;

IV. order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) insofar as it concerns the classification of n-propyl bromide.

The pleas in law and main arguments invoked in this case are similar to those invoked in case T-422/03, Enviro Tech Europe and Enviro Tech International against Commission (OJ 2004 C 47, p. 35).

(1) OJ L 152, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/43

Action brought on 22 January 2005 by Agroexpansión S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-38/05)

(2005/C 82/76)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 2005 by Agroexpansión S.A., Madrid (Spain), represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo and Patricia Vidal Martínez, of the Madrid Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. partially annul Article 3 of the Decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004, reducing the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision at issue is the same as in Case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission (1).

The grounds put forward by the applicant are similar to those relied on in that case (infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003).

In particular, it is alleged that the Commission erred in taking into consideration the consolidated turnover of the group of undertakings headed by DIMON INC., in order to determine the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant. Furthermore, AGROEXPANSION only became part of that group in November 1997.

Moreover, the Commission failed to take account of the attenuating circumstance that the applicant ceased to engage in those practices as soon as it became aware of the Commission's measures of inspection.

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/20

Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Total Nederland v Commission

(Case T-348/06)

(2007/C 20/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Total Nederland NV (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 13 September 2006 (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — Nederland) in so far as it finds the existence of a single continuous infringement by the applicant from 1994 to 2002 rather than from 1996 to 2002;

— annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as: (i) it fails to take into account the reduced duration of the infringement referred to above; (ii) it fails to properly assess the gravity of the infringement; (iii) it fails to acknowledge the existence of mitigating circumstances; (iv) it increases the fine for deterrence purpose taking into account the turnover of Total SA which it wrongly considers to have participated to the applicant's infringement

— reduce, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Council Regulation 1/2003, the level of fine so as to properly reflect the nature of the applicant's involvement in the practice;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — NL, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by regularly collectively fixing, for sales and purchases of road pavement bitumen in the Netherlands, the gross price, a uniform rebate on the gross price for participating road builders and a smaller maximum rebate on the gross price for other road builders.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into account evidence showing that the agreement from 1994 was entered into for one year only and broken off before its term and by misconstruing evidence in claiming that a continuous adherence in 1995 to some of the terms of the 1994 agreement was shown.

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant actually implemented the agreement while it relied on such an implementation when assessing the gravity of the infringement.

Furthermore, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to take into account evidence demonstrating that the applicant breached the agreement.

Finally, the applicant considers that the Commission committed an error of law by calculating the multiplier for deterrence applied to the applicant's fine on the turnover of the parent company Total SA. The Commission thereby relied, without justification, on a presumption of participation by the parent company and retained a concept of objective per se liability for the parent company.
—

Infringement of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, in so far as the contested decision held that the exemption from the excise duty provided for in the Italian system is State aid. It is stated in that respect that, as confirmed by the wording of Directive 2003/96/EC (1), the exemptions from excise duty in question do not constitute State aid but come within the nature and the logic of the national tax system. In fact, if they were State aid the directive cited expressly authorises said aid, at least for a period until 31 December 2006. With regard to the alleged selective character of the measures under consideration, it is observed that the same are addressed in general to all businesses using mineral oils for the production of aluminium oxide. The fact that there is only one plant in Italy at which such mineral oils are used in the production cycle is of purely factual relevance and is not capable of undermining the general scope of the provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/47

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Dow Chemical and Others v Commission

(Case T-42/07)

(2007/C 82/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, United Sates of America), Dow Deutschland Inc. (Schwalbach, Germany), Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH (Schwalbach, Germany), Dow Europe GmbH (Horgen, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Schroeder, P. Matthey, T. Graf, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— The Dow Chemical Company respectfully requests the Court to annul the decision insofar as it relates to it;

— Dow Deutschland Inc. respectfully requests the Court to annul Article 1 of the decision insofar as it finds that Dow Deutschland Inc. infringed Articles 81 EC and 53 EEA from 1 July 1996;

— all applicants (and the Dow Chemical Company in the alternative) respectfully request the Court to substantially reduce their fines;

— all applicants respectfully request the Court — to order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter as well as the costs incurred by the applicants in providing a bank guarantee in lieu of the applicants' fines pending judgment by this Court; and — to take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging sensitive commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers in the Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber sectors.

In support of their application, the applicants advance three principal pleas:

By the first plea, divided into three branches, The Dow Chemical Company (hereinafter ‘TDCC’) submits that the Commission erred in law; a) in finding that TDCC had committed an infringement based on the assumption that a wholly-owned subsidiary essentially follows the instructions given by the parent company without verifying whether the parent company had in fact exercised such power; b) in imposing a fine on it, holding it responsible for infringements committed by its subsidiaries; and c) without exercising its discretion, in deciding whether or not to address its decision to TDCC.

By the second plea, the Dow Deutschland Inc. and TDCC contend that the Commission erred in fact and law in determining the duration of Dow Deutschland Inc.'s participation in the infringement by choosing 1 July 1996 as the starting date of the infringement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/30

Action brought on 7 May 2007 — United Technologies v Commission

(Case T-146/07)

(2007/C 155/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Technologies Corp. (Hartford, United States) (represented by: A. Winckler, lawyer, and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on UTC pursuant to the decision;

— order the Commission to pay UTC's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

— take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), on the basis of which the applicant, among other undertakings were held liable for participating in four single, complex and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) EC through the sharing of markets by virtue of agreeing and/or concerting to allocate tenders and contracts for the sale, installation, service and modernisation of elevators and escalators.

In support of its application, the applicant first of all submits that the Commission wrongly held that mere legal ownership of a wholly owned subsidiary justifies a finding of parental liability. The applicant alleges in this connection that i) Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) requires evidence of intention or negligence, ii) that the parent company has to exercise actual control over the subsidiary's commercial policy during the infringement period or be aware of the conduct and do nothing to terminate it, and iii) that the parent company's liability for its subsidiaries' antitrust infringements must be based on its actual behaviour and not the ability to influence.

The applicant thereafter contends that it has rebutted any presumption of liability as its subsidiaries autonomously determined their day-to-day commercial conduct and the relevant employees disobeyed instructions after the applicant had taken every reasonable step to ensure compliance with the competition rules. Furthermore the Commission failed, according to the applicant, to state reasons for its finding that the applicant did not rebut the presumption of liability.

The applicant moreover alleges that the 70 % increase of the fine imposed on the applicant for size and deterrence is unjustified and disproportionate.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment in holding the applicant responsible for the illegal conduct of its subsidiaries whereas the Commission applied a different legal test to find that Mitsubishi Electric Corporation Japan was not responsible for the conduct of its subsidiary.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 140/32

Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Siemens Transmission & Distribution and Nuova Magrini Galileo v Commission

(Case T-124/07)

(2007/C 140/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA (Grenoble, France) and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (Bergamo, Italy) (represented by H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it finds that the applicants infringed Article 81 EC and/or Article 53 of the EEA Agreement during the period from 15 April 1988 to 13 December 2000, 1 April 2002 to 9 October 2002, and 21 January 2004 to 11 May 2004;

— annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as the applicants are affected;

— in the alternative, reduce the fines reduce the fines imposed on the applicants in Article 2(l) of the decision to an amount not exceeding EUR 2 750 000 for the first and EUR 1 100 000 for the second applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas-isolated switchgear. In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicants and other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicants took part in a set of agreements and concerted practices concerning the gas-isolated switchgear sector.

The applicants base their application primarily on breach of Article 81(1) EC, Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and Article 25 of that regulation. In this connection they complain that the fines imposed on them exceed 10 % of their turnover in the last trading year before the decision. Furthermore, the Commission did not take account of the individual circumstances of the applicants when setting the fine. In addition, the applicants assert that the determination of the undertakings together with which they are to be jointly liable and the amounts of the fines imposed on the individual joint debtors are incomprehensible and incorrect. The Commission also exaggerated the duration of the alleged infringement and did not recognise that the limitation period had expired for the predominant part of it. Finally, it is submitted in connection with the first plea in law that the Commission found without cogent proof that until 13 December 2000 the alleged infringement had as its purpose or effect a restriction of competition within the Community.

Second, the applicants submit that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements. In this connection they complain of a breach of the right to be heard.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/55

Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Martin v Parliament

(Case T-276/07)

(2007/C 211/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Petter Martin (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 10 May 2007 taken by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, notified on 14 May 2007, according to which it was decided that a certain sum had been paid unduly to the applicant and that, pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament, that sum was to be recovered from the applicant;

— If necessary, annul the decision of 13 June 2007 originating from the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, taken pursuant to the decision of 10 May 2007, putting the applicant on formal notice to pay the aforementioned amounts or to propose a written clearance plan accepted by the Parliament within 30 days of that decision;

— Annul, if necessary and where applicable, all decisions implementing the aforementioned decisions which might arise in the course of the proceedings;

— In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an investigation concerning the secretarial allowances granted to the applicant in his capacity as Member of the European Parliament, the OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) drew up a report finding certain irregularities. On the basis of that report, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament adopted the contested decision of 10 May 2007, by which it decided that the sums which had been paid unduly to the applicant were to be reimbursed by him pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament.

The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of his action.

The first plea alleges incorrect and inaccurate application of the Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament, in particular Articles 14 and 27(3) thereof.

The second plea alleges an error of assessment as to the relevance of the supporting documents provided by the applicant.

Moreover, the applicant relies on a plea alleging infringement of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1) and infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

Lastly, the applicant puts forward a plea alleging breach of the principle audi alteram partem and of the rights of the defence.

(1) OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/44

Action brought on 11 October 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

(Case T-387/07)

(2007/C 297/90)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Inês Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ (global grant for local development) pursuant to Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995;

— an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Lack of clarity in the statement of reasons. With the expression ‘as shown above’, the defendant makes a generic reference to the analysis summarily carried out and reconstructed in the contested decision. In Chapter 6, ‘Conclusions’, the defendant does not clearly identify what are the laws or provisions infringed by the Portuguese Republic.

Non-existence of the irregularity detected and infringement of the terms of the agreement concluded by the Commission and the Caixa Geral de Depósitos on 15 November 1995 by the Commission in the contested decision. The irregularity referred to by the Commission in the contested decision is groundless, for no account has been taken of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement, which allow the remaining future payments to be put back to 31 December 2001.