Case T-70/01: Action brought on 26 March 2001 by Pier V. Amione against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European official, action for annulment (EU), dismissal, regulations for civil servants, unpaid leave

19.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/33

Action brought on 20 March 2001 by Imperial Chemical
Industries plc against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-66/01)

(2001/C 150/64)

(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 20 March 2001 by Imperial
Chemical Industries plc, represented by David Vaughan QC,
David Anderson QC, Sarah Lee, Shirley Turner, Sarah Berwick
and Richard Coles

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision dated 13 December
2000 in Case No COMP/33.133-D: Soda Ash — ICI;

— cancel or reduce the fine imposed on ICI by Article 2 of

the decision;

— order the Commission to pay ICI’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in the present case is based upon a
finding by the Commission that from about 1983 ‘at least up
to the end of 1989’:

— The applicant (ICI) held a dominant position in the

market for soda ash in the United Kingdom;

— ICI abused that dominant position by applying to its
major customers a system of loyalty rebates, discounts by
reference to marginal tonnage (top slice rebates), and
contractual arrangements tending to ensure an effective
exclusivity of supply for ICI, and other devices which had
the object and effect of tying such customers to ICI and
of excluding competitors; and

— ICI’s conduct had an appreciable effect on trade between

Member States.

According to ICI, this decision is a retaking ten years on of an
annulled Commission decision first taken in 1990 against ICI
itself under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) in
relation to alleged infringements in the soda ash market. Also
in 1990 the Commission took a decision against ICI under
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) in relation to
alleged infringements of that article in the same market. Both
decisions were annulled in their entirety on 29 June 1995 (1).
lodged by the Commission, relating to Case
The appeal
Justice (2). The
T-37/91, was dismissed by the Court of
judgment in Case T-36/91 was never appealed.

ICI claims that the Commission has now retaken the 1990
Article 86 decision, albeit with a number of additions and
amendments to the text, and re-imposed the original fine of
EUR 10 million. It further claims that no new administrative
proceedings were initiated in relation to the decision. The
Commission apparently chose to rely on the administrative
proceedings which preceded the 1990 Article 85 and
Article 86 decisions.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

— the fine in question has been imposed after the expiry of
the time-limits laid down by Regulation No 2988/74 (3);

— the Commission has violated the fundamental right to
proceedings within a reasonable time because of the
passage of time since the matters complained of and the
commencement of the Commission’s investigation;

— the defendant has disregarded the non bis in idem

principle;

— there should have been a fresh administrative procedure
and the failure to conduct one has resulted in infringe-
ment of essential procedural requirements; and

— the Commission incorrectly assessed the facts, as regards
the applicant’s dominance and abuse, as well as the
question relating to effect on trade between Member
States.

(1) Cases T-36/91 and T-37/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR

II-1847, 1905.

(2) Case C-286/95 P Commission v ICI [2000] ECR I — 2341.
(3) Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November
1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the
enforcement of sanctions under the rules of
the European
Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OL
L 319 of 29.11.1974, p. 1).

Action brought on 26 March 2001 by Pier V. Amione
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-70/01)

(2001/C 150/65)

(Language of the case: Italian)

the Court of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 26 March 2001 by Pier
V. Amione, represented by Riccardo Ventura, avvocato.

Justice of

C 150/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— that the Joint Committee took its decision without first

hearing the applicant himself; and

— annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice
of the EC of 22 May 2000 although only to the extent
that by that decision the applicant was dismissed with
effect from 1 June 2000 but not that the applicant was
not reinstated on 16 July 2000;

— that the defendant applied particularly strictly a provision,
Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, which allows the
appointing authority the possibility, without imposing an
obligation, of dismissal after two refusals of reinstate-
ment.

— grant fair compensation, in an amount to be decided by
the Court of First Instance itself on grounds of equity;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the
appointing authority to deem terminated the employment
relationship between the applicant, a lawyer-linguist at the
Court of Justice, and that institution, a decision based on the
fact that the applicant did not return to work after a period of
unpaid leave on personal grounds.

The applicant states in that respect that his unpaid leave
commenced on 1 June 1992. That leave was renewed on three
occasions and expired on 31 May 1995. Pursuant to Article 40
of the Staff Regulations he was offered reinstatement in the
Court for 1 January 1999. The offer, dated 19 November
1998, did not come to the applicant’s notice until 23 Novem-
ber 1998. It therefore provided, in the applicant’s view, an
excessively short period in which to give a positive reply, and
so that offer was not accepted. However, the applicant put to
the personnel division 16 July 1999 as a possible date for
reinstatement, provided the relevant offer was made to him
within a reasonable period (‘délai raisonnable’). His suggestion
was adopted, but by letter which did not reach him until May
1999 and so the applicant suggested a reinstatement date of
July 2000.

Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-72/01)

(2001/C 150/66)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres
of Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
Levi, Avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
COM/TA/99 of 31 May 2000 excluding the applicant
from the oral tests in the competition;

— annul all subsequent operations and acts in the compe-

tition;

— so far as necessary, annul the decision of the AHCC of
15 December 2000 dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:

— order the defendant to pay one Euro in compensation for

the harm suffered by the applicant;

— breach of the ‘délai raisonnable’ criterion by the defendant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.