Case T-389/00: Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Campina Melkunie B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), animal product, toxic substance

24.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/15

Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Campina
Melkunie B.V. against the Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging Neder-
landse Cementindustrie (VNC) against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-389/00)

(2001/C 95/29)

(Case T-2/01)

(2001/C 95/30)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 December 2000 by Campina
Melkunie B.V., established at Rosmalen (Netherlands), rep-
resented by Y. Van Gerven, F.P. Louis and R. Van der Vlies, of
Messrs Stibbe Simont Monahan Duhot, lawyers, Brussels, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
lawyers,
C. Medernach, of Messrs Arendt & Medernach,
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2000
refusing access to the correspondence between the Com-
mission and the Belgian authorities, originating from the
Commission, and to the documents exchanged and the
minutes of meetings with the Belgian authorities or any
other party concerned, regarding the dioxin crisis during
the period from 3 June to 9 July 1999;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Decision 94/90 and of Article 253 EC

The reasons given for the contested decision do not show
that the Commission carried out a separate examination
of each of the documents requested so as to ascertain
whether they related to its inspection and investigation
activities or its infringement procedure, or to the coming
into existence of
its Decisions 1999/368 of 4 June
1999 and 1999/449 of 9 July 1999.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging
Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC), established at ’s-Herto-
genbosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel,
T.M. Snoep and R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000
refusing to pay VNC interest on the fine improperly
imposed on it;

— order the Commission to pay to VNC interest at the rate
least at an appropriate rate, on
of 8,75 %, or at
100 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to
23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to
VNC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 15 March 2000, the Court of First Instance
annulled Commission Decision 94/815/EC in so far as that
decision imposed a fine on the applicant. On 23 November
2000 the Commission transferred the amount of the fine paid
by the applicant to a bank account maintained by the applicant,
but not the interest demanded by the applicant.

The applicant advances the following pleas in support of its
application for annulment:

The Commission has failed, contrary to Article 253 EC,
to give separate reasons in respect of each individual
document as to why the refusal to allow inspection is
necessary in order to protect the public interest.

Infringement of Article 233 EC: by not paying interest on the
amount of the fine, the Commission failed to take the necessary
measures to comply with the judgment.

— Infringement of Decision 94/90 and breach of

the
principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission
has not given partial access to the documents.

Infringement of the general principles of proper adminis-
tration: in so far as the Commission differentiates between
undertakings which pay the fine and undertakings which
instead provide a bank guarantee,
it contravenes general
principles of proper administration, namely the principle of
equal
the duty of care and the principle of
proportionality.

treatment,