Case T-2/01: Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC) against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), cement, fine, interest

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,

C 95/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2001

Infringement of the right to put forward a proper defence: if
an undertaking on which the Commission has wrongly
imposed a fine is not entitled to claim lost interest, it is in
effect not in a position to mount a full defence against
decisions wrongly addressed to it by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
T-2/01.

Unjustified enrichment.

Since there exists no generally applicable rate of interest, the
applicant bases its calculation of the interest on the percentage
charged by the Commission when fixing the amount to be
paid by undertakings which have delayed paying a justified
fine.

Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Nederlandse
Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-3/01)

(2001/C 95/31)

(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 4 January 2001 by Eerste Neder-
landse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV, established at ’s-Hertogen-
bosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel 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 ENCI interest on the fine improperly
imposed on it;

— order the Commission to pay to ENCI interest at the rate
of 8,75 %, or at
least at an appropriate rate, on
7 316 000 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
ENCI;

Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale
Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-5/01)

(2001/C 95/32)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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 the Istituto
Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and
Others, represented by Giovanni Pesce and Filippo Brunetti,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— uphold the application and order the defendant to pay

the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application is directed against the decision con-
tained in the letter dated 27 October 2000 (D13118), signed
by the Director General of the European Commission, Direc-
torate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, by which
the applicant consortium of undertakings was informed that
they had been excluded from the tendering procedure relating
to the information campaign on food safety in Member States
for 2000 and 2001.

The rejection at issue is based on the lack of evidence of:

— at least three years’ of experience in cooperation with a

consumer organisation; and

— ability to involve the consumer organisations in the

campaign.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

In support of its arguments, the applicant consortium alleges: