C 61/16 EN 24.2.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
Communities
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı ´nez Alarco ´n v Commission.(Case T-364/00)
(2001/C 61/32)
(Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Sophie VanAction brought on 27 November 2000 by Luigia DricotWeyenbergh, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented byagainst the Commission of the European CommunitiesCarlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should: (Case T-363/00)
— annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit (2001/C 61/31)
the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
decision of the appointing authority dated 9 October2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
(Language of the case: French) ted by the applicant;
— alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- the sum of BEF 2 941 667, subject to alteration during
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Luigia for material and non-material damage;
Dricot, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar. — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru- The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
ary 2000 of the selection board in competition forward in Case T-357/00 Martı ´nez Alarco ´n v Commission.
COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that
competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing
authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative
response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;
— alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
the sum of BEF 500 000, subject to alteration during theAction brought on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.course of the proceedings, by way of compensation foragainst the Commission of the European Communitiesmaterial and non-material damage;
(Case T-366/00)— order the defendant to pay the costs.
(2001/C 61/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments
(Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı ´nez Alarco ´n v Commission. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.,
a company registered in France, represented by Jeremy LeverQC and George Peretz, Barristers and Robin Griffith, Solicitor
of Clifford Chance, London.
24.2.2001 EN C 61/17 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should: — That the contested decision violates the principle of the
legitimate expectation, inasmuch as for many years prior
to 1997, the Commission would have known about the
existence and contents of French Law pursuant to which — annul the contested decision, alternatively Article 2
the aid in question has been granted. thereof; and
— That the Commission committed manifest error of calcu-
— order the Commission to pay the costs. lation.
(1) OJ L 83, of 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The current application arises out of the Commission Decision
of 12 July 2000 (C(2000)2183) addressed to the French
Republic concerning two aids said to have been granted to theapplicant by the French Public Authorities. The two aids in
Action brought on 30 November 2000 by General Motors question consist of:
Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V. against the
Commission of the European Communities
— That the local authorities arranged for the transfer to the
applicant of a certain and, namely 49 hectares of(Case T-368/00)68 hectares site in the industrial zone of La Saussaye, and
a factory on that site at a preferential price.
(2001/C 61/34)
— That the applicant benefited from a preferential tariff
in respect of effluent treatment charges (redevances(Language of the case: English)d’assainissement) levied by the City of Orléans.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of their conclusions, the applicant submits: European Communities on 30 November 2000 by General
Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V., companies
registered in the Netherlands, represented by Dirk Vander-
— That insofar as Article 2 of the contested decision orders meersch, Robbert Snelders and Steven Allcock of Cleary,
the French Republic to recover the aid in question, it Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Brussels.
infringes Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules
The applicant claims that the Court should: for the application of Article 93 [now 88] of the EEC
Treaty (
1), which provides for a 10 year limitation period
in respect of the Commission’s power to recover aid. — annul Commission Decision No. C(2000) 2707 of
20 September 2000 (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel),
addressed to General Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel
— That the administrative procedure infringed essential Nederland B.V.; alternatively
procedural requirements and the applicant’s rights of
defence and that the recovery order requires the French— to cancel or reduce the fine imposed;Republic to act in breach of the European Convention of
Human Rights. In this connection, Scott relies in particu-
— to order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs. lar on the fact that there was never any fair trial of the
issues on which its liability to ‘repay’ the alleged aid was
determined, let alone any fair trial in which the applicant
could participate and in which the rights of defence werePleas in law and main argumentsrespected. On the contrary, the Commission treated the
administrative procedure as being essentially a procedure
between itself and the French Republic. The contested decision imposes a fine of 43 million euros on
the applicants for an alleged infringement of Article 81(1) EC.
The Commission concludes that Opel Nederland B.V. entered
into agreements with Opel dealers in the Netherlands aimed at — That the contested decision results in unequal treatment
of equal situations, in relation to cases that in pari materia restricting or prohibiting export sales of Opel vehicles to end-
users and Opel dealers located in other Member States. with that of Scott.