29.9.2001 EN C 275/17 Official Journal of the European Communities
Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission has misused The Commission found that these terms and conditions of sale
were contrary to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty since they its discretion in ordering repayment at Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk
GmbH’s expense of aid totalling DEM 7 100 136. It argues restricted parallel imports and exports to other Member States.
This decision is now contested by the applicant. that the Commission did not take account of Gothaer Fahr-
zeugwerk GmbH’s contribution to the overall result. It addsthat DEM 3300000 were undeniably used in accordance with
In support of its Application, the applicant contests the the initial objective, and that the remaining amount of
applicability of Article 81(1) EC Treaty on the grounds that DEM 3800336 was determined on the basis of a distribution
the conditions of sale do not constitute an agreement and they ration arbitrarily adopted by the Commission, so that the
have no restrictive object or effect. The applicant further claims contested decision is contrary to Community law and void.
that the conditions of sale compensate for a market irregularity
caused by the setting of prices by the Spanish authorities. In
the alternative, the applicant claims the conditions of sale areeligible for an exemption under Article 81(3) EC Treaty.
Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome plc
against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l. against
(Case T-168/01) Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-180/01) (2001/C 275/32)
(2001/C 275/33)(Language of the case: English)
(Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-European Communities on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcometies was brought before the Court of First Instance of theplc, having its registered office in Middlesex (UK), representedEuropean Communities on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l.,by I.S. Forrester Q.C. and A.P. Schulz of White & Caserepresented by Walter Masucci, lawyer.Brussels, F. Depoortere, T. Louko and I. Vandenborre of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Brussels, and
S. Martinez Lage of Martinez Lage & AssociadosThe applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of the EuropeanThe applicant claims that the Court should:Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274;
— annul the Commission decision of 8 May 2001; — in the alternative, annul in part the contested decision
and reduce, in proportion with the actual investments
made, the financial contribution allocated to Euroagri — take such other or further steps as justice may require;
s.r.l. by the Commission’s decision of 3 December 1992;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant notified its new terms and conditions of sale to
the Commission pursuant to Regulation 17/62. The new terms By this application, the applicant company seeks the annul-
ment of the decision of the Commission of the European and conditions of sale of the applicant consisted of two
different pricing systems for its pharmaceutical products. The Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274 cancelling the
contribution allocated to the applicant itself by decision first one was used for products to be sold in Spain and financed
by the Spanish Social Security system. In this case the prices C(92)3124 of 3 December 1992, pursuant to Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down were, according to the applicant, all set by the Spanish
authorities at a low level. The second system applied to provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (1) in the context of products to be sold outside the scope of the Spanish price
setting system by wholesalers authorised according to Spanish project No 92. IT.06.069 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project
for the use of new “Endovena” technology on fruit trees’. Law. In the latter system, the prices were set by the applicant.
C 275/18 EN 29.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
In support of its claim, the applicant alleges: — error of assessment by the defendant vitiating the contest-
ed measure inasmuch as it is illogical and inadequate;
— breach of the obligation to state reasons;— breach of the principle of proportionality so far as
concerns the claim in the alternative.— breach of the essential procedural requirements provided
for by the abovementioned Regulation No 4253/88,
(1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25. specifically with respect to Articles 24 and 25 thereof;