Case C-24/01 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community loan, General Court (EU), appeal to the Court (EU), competition law, distribution business, infringement of EU law

C 108/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
as meaning that the application of the system introduced
by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
notification of individual reference quantities for pro-
ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among
its producers by the Member State of the global quantity
which that State is guaranteed?

(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be
interpreted as meaning that no official notification of
individual reference quantities need be given to producers,
or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity
exclude individual notification to those producers?

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.

Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities
in Joined Cases
T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glen-
core Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Second Chamber)

(Case C-24/01 P)

(2001/C 108/06)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93,
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the
(Agents:
Commission of
M.-J. Jonczy and H. van V1iet) was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 22 January 2001
by Glencore Grain Ltd, represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van
Zuuren, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo Hammer.

European Communities

the

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— rule that,

in its judgment of 8 November 2000, the
Court of First Instance infringed Community law and/or
procedural rules;

— rule that the Court of First Instance should have awarded
the damages applied for, and accordingly refer the
case back to the Court of First Instance for further
consideration, or alternatively itself award the appellant
the damages sought;

— allow, on appeal, the claims made by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance manifestly erred in law by
having regard exclusively to the conditions of
free
competition: where contracts are concluded at the level
of prices on the world market, the burden of proof with
regard to free competition must be less onerous. There is
no reason to adhere to the clearly formalistic rule
requiring competition between at least three undertakings
independent of each other if that will not lead to markedly
different results. The Court of First Instance therefore
displayed an erroneous conception of the law in failing
to attach primary importance to the condition relating to
the world market price, or at least in not allowing that
condition to influence its assessment of the burden of
proof with regard to free competition.

— The Court of First

Instance displayed an erroneous
conception of the law in ruling that the principle of free
competition was not complied with at the time when the
riders to the contracts were entered into:

— Community law does not require three offers to be

made in respect of each contract concluded;

— in arriving at its conclusion concerning the require-
ment of free competition, the Court of First Instance
laid down a rule lacking any foundation as regards
the objective and purpose of both Council Decision
91/658/EEC (1)
(‘the Decision’) and Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 1897/92 (2) (‘the Regulation’).
Neither of those acts requires, for the purposes of
approval pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation,
that each contract must involve offers from at least
two other independent suppliers which must be
comparable to the offer accepted;

terms ..., [of] the responses,

— without making any express statement to that effect,
the Court of First Instance nevertheless appears to
require each supplier to comply with the obligation
imposed on the Russian authorities, in their capacity
as the recipient of the loan, requiring consideration,
‘upon being officially notified ... of the new contrac-
tual
favourable or
unfavourable, given by at least three independent
undertakings’. That rule was laid down solely in
Annex 2-A to the loan agreement concluded by the
Community. That subsequent shifting of obligations
from one party to the other is wrong in law, since
rules of which third parties (such as Glencore in the
present case) are unaware cannot be invoked against
those third parties;

— the Court of First Instance erred in its determination
of the case by failing to take into account the
Commission’s own administrative practice and the
obligations flowing therefrom;

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/5

— the Court of First Instance displayed an incorrect
conception of the law by incorrectly weighing the
evidence adduced with regard to free competition.
The Court of First Instance should have found that
the Commission had obtained evidence of 7 written
offers and that 5 of those 7 offers led to the
conclusion of separate contracts.

— refer the application for damages back to the Court of
First Instance in order for the case to be argued and for
that application to be allowed;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present

action and all the costs incurred by the appellant.

— Infringement of Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance, on account of the failure
by that Court to take evidence of its own motion from
witnesses.

— The Court of First Instance should have awarded the
damages applied for, and the case should therefore be
referred back to the Court of First Instance for further
consideration; alternatively, the Court of Justice should
itself award those damages to the appellant.

(1) OJ 1991 L 362, p. 89.
(2) OJ 1992 L 191, p. 22.

Appeal brought on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie
Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on
8 November 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Cases
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Compagnie Continentale
(France) and the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case C-25/01 P)

(2001/C 108/07)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November
2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
in Joined Cases T-485/93,
the European Communities
T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between L. Dreyfus & Cie
S.A., Glencore Grain Ltd, Compagnie Continentale (France)
and the Commission of
the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie Continentale (France),
represented by P.V.F. Bos and P. Chabrier, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue
Carlo Hammer.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

8 November 2000;

— annul the Commission’s decision of 1 April 1993;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-24/01 P (1).

(1) See p. 4 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom

(Case C-30/01)

(2001/C 108/08)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr R. Wainwright, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

by Directive

— declare that, by failing in respect of Gibraltar to adopt the
laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
to comply with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June
1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions in relation to the classification,
packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) as
88/302/EEC (2), Directive
amended
91/410/EEC (3), Directive 92/32/EEC (4), Directive 92/69/
EEC (5), Directive 93/21/EEC (6), Directive 93/67/EEC (7)
Directive 93/72/EEC (8), Directive 93/101/EC (9), Directive
93/105/EC (10), Directive 94/69/EC (11), Directive 96/54/
EC (12) and Directive 97/69/EC (13), Council Directive
87/18/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the harmonisation
of
the laws, regulations and administrative practice
relating to the application of good laboratory practice
and verification of their application for tests on chemical
substances (14), Council Directive 93/12/EEC of 23 March
1993 relating to the sulphur content of certain liquid
fuels (15) as amended by Directive 98/70/EC (16), Council
Directive 79/113/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
approximation of the laws in the Member States relating
to the determination of the noise emission of construction
plant and equipment (17) as amended by Directive
81/1051/EEC (18) and Directive 85/405/EEC(19), Council
Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the
approximation of the laws in the Member States relating