C 275/16 EN 29.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicant states in that respect that, in Case C-257/98 Pleas in law and main arguments
P Lucaccioni v Commission, the damages sought were exam-ined by the Court of Justice only in the context of the Staff
Regulations and with regard to occupational diseases. Despite
the fact that the Medical Committee’s report had given thediagnosis date as January 1990, the Court took the view that By its decision of 28 March 2001, the Commission ordered
payment of the compensation/interest should be dated from the Federal Republic of Germany to recover aid totalling
April 1994, the date on which the proceedings were brought DEM 34 978 000 from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH
to a close. It is therefore evident that the Court did not take and/or its subsidiaries, including Gothaer Fahrzeugwerke
into account the non-material and biological damage suffered GmbH.
by the applicant and unquestionably caused by the European
Commission from September 1967 until April 1994, or at
least until November 1980, in accordance with the legal rules
currently in force, the Charter of fundamental rights of the
European Union and the Convention on Human Rights. Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH’s main activity was in the vehicle
construction business. The company’s assets in that area were
transferred to the applicant. According to the applicant, the
Commission may be acting on the assumption that the(1) Case T-165/95 Lucaccioniv Commission [1998] ECR FP-IA-applicant is the (partial) legal successor to Gothaer Fahr-203,II-67.zeugwerke GmbH, thereby establishing liability for repayment
on the part of the applicant even though only assets were
acquired.
According to the applicant, Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH,
which is currently in liquidation, repaid its share of the total
amount of aid to be repaid. If, however, that company were toAction brought on 17 July 2001 by Schmitz-Gothabe declared insolvent, that repayment might be called backFahrzeugwerke GmbH against the Commission of theinto question and the corresponding amount partially orEuropean Communitieswholly included in the general insolvency mass. For that
reason, the applicant has a legal interest in Commission’sdecision being annulled.(Case T-167/01)
(2001/C 275/31)
The applicant argues that there has been an infringement of
essential procedural requirements on account of inadequate (Language of the case: German)
reasoning for the decision, inasmuch as the Commission holds
that the decision enables a requirement for repayment to beestablished against the applicant. The applicant submits that,An action against the Commission of the European Communi-if the Commission orders in a decision that aid should beties was brought before the Court of First Instance of thereclaimed from certain undertakings named in that decision,European Communities on 17 July 2001 by Schmitz-Gothathat decision is limited solely to those particular undertakings.Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, Gotha (Germany), represented byIf, however, the Commission takes the view that other, third-Martin Matzat, Rechtsanwalt.party, undertakings, which are legally independent and have
merely had assets transferred to them, may also be held liable
for repayment of the aid, such a view requires that those
undertakings be specifically named in the decision itself and The applicant claims that the Court should:
that a detailed justification be provided as to why the factual
requirements for such liability are present.
— annul Commission Decision No C 41/99 (ex N 49/95) of
28 March 2001 in so far as it holds the applicant liable
in respect of the portion of aid due for repayment
attributable to Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH;
The applicant further argues that, by assuming or declaring
the applicant to be liable, the Commission has infringed the— in the alternative, should the Commission’s decision notTreaty. It maintains, inter alia, that to hold the acquirers ofbe open to a challenge in part, annul the above decisionassets unrestrictedly liable is not compatible with Communityin its entirety;principles. In particular, such comprehensive liability infringes
the principle of proportionality. Moreover, the claims forrepayment bore no relation to the assets taken over. — order the Commission to pay the costs.
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.