Case T-19/01: Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), distributive trades, import licence, tariff quota, tropical fruit

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/23

In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
practising at that Bar.

By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
applicant’s complaint.

In the present case, the applicant submits inter alia that the
Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
framework at Community level
and effects of
regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.

the legal

Grounds of claim:

Infringement of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe-
ment of the EC Treaty (Articles
28 and 29 EC) — No similarity
between the
conflicting trade
marks — Impermissible splitting-
up of the mark into its individual
component parts — Failure to
have regard to the case-law of the
Court of Justice concerning the
impression given by a
overall
mark — Right of a competitor in
the market to combine the name
of its main products with its com-
pany name — Change in the legal
position since registration of the
opposing mark.

Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-18/01)

(2001/C 108/43)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of
Merriman White, London (UK).

Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands
International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the
European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu-
lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
Bar of England and Wales

— Order the Commission to pay the costs

(Case T-19/01)

(2001/C 108/44)

(Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales
and the practice of law as a barrister.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
(UK).

C 108/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendant to pay damages pursuant to Article
288 EC for the losses suffered by it through the unlawful
measures
by Commission Regulation
2362/98 (1), all sums to be increased with compensatory
interest at a rate of 8 % to be applied from the day on
which the damage materialised.

introduced

— Order the defendant to pay legal interest on such sums as

are found to be due at a rate of 8 %

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants operate their business in the EC as a single
economic entity, and the core of the their operations is the
marketing, distribution and sourcing of bananas.

As the factual and legal background for their claims, the
applicants have indicated that
in 1993 the EC ‘banana
regime’ was introduced through Council Regulation 404/93 (2).
Following a dispute settlement procedure in the WTO finding
aspects of this regime to be WTO-incompatible, the EC agreed
to make its banana regime compatible by 1 January 1999.
This was purportedly done by Council Regulation No
1637/98 (3) and Commission Regulation No 2362/98. How-
ever, the EC’s amended banana regime was also found to be
WTO-incompatible in two supplemental WTO rulings issued
in April 1999 which related inter alia to the system for
distribution of import licences and the division of a yearly
tariff rate quota of 2 553 000 tonnes opened for imports from
Latin America into ‘country allocations’. In spite of those
rulings, these allegedly unlawful measures remain in force.

The applicants state that as a result of the discriminatory
licences as introduced by Regulation No
distribution of
2362/98, they have suffered a loss of market share and have
been forced to buy or lease the use of import licences and to
accept unfavourable contract conditions. The applicants claim
to have sustained substantial damage and losses caused by the
defendant’s breach of law, and under Articles 235 and 288 EC
they claim compensation for a continuing loss of profit and
for non-recurring costs which would not have been incurred
had the measures in the regulation not been introduced.

The applicants submit that Regulation No 2362/98 is unlawful
in that it infringes superior rules of law,
i.e. WTO rules
and obligations, as well as the fundamental policy of the
Community to amend the banana regime in order to make it
WTO-compatible.

Furthermore, the applicants allege that the measures intro-
duced via the regulation violate the limits of the Commission’s
implementing powers as to the WTO-compatibility of the
licensing regime and the division into ‘country allocations’,
and that the Commission has acted in breach of its clear
mandate from the Council.

Finally, the applicants contend that the measures introduced
by Regulation No 2362/98 infringe the principle of non-
discrimination, the freedom to pursue trade or business as well
as the principle of good faith in international law and the
legitimate expectations traders can derive from that.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).

(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 28.

Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli
and 5 other employees of the European Central Bank
against the European Central Bank

(Case T-20/01)

(2001/C 108/45)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli and 5 other
employees of the European Central Bank, represented by
Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsan-
wälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(1)

annul the rule laid down in Article 8.1.0 of the provisional
Staff Rules, as brought into force by the European Central
Bank with effect from 16 August 2000, and the rule laid
down in Article 7.2.0 of the provisional Staff Rules, as
brought into force with effect from 26 September 2000,
alternatively annul those rules as regards the relationship
between the defendant and the applicants;

(2)

annul Administrative Circular 01/2000 concerning the
Rules for Business Travel, alternatively annul Administrat-
ive Circular 01/2000 as between the defendant and the
applicants;