Case T-67/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), exclusive distribution agreement, mechanical engineering, restriction on competition

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/9

The applicant challenges those decisions, alleging:

— infringement of Articles 4, 5, 7, 25 and 29 of the Staff

Regulations,

— breach of the principle of correspondence between grade

and post,

— breach of the principle of entitlement to reasonable career

prospects,

— failure to have regard to the interests of the service,

— breach of the principle of equal treatment,

— breach of the duty to provide a proper statement of

reasons, and

— breach of the principle of sound management and proper

administration.

Action brought on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-67/01)

(2001/C 186/14)

(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 22 March 2001 by JCB Service,
Staffordshire (UK) represented by Richard Fowler QC, Rupert
Anderson, Barrister, Laura Carstensen and Marc Israel of
Slaughter and May, London (UK).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the Commission’s Decision C(2000) 3887 of
21 December 2000 in Case COMP.F.1/35/918 — JCB
void and annul it in its entirety;

— in the alternative, annul those parts of the Decision to the
extent that the Court considers just and appropriate in
the circumstances and to reduce the fine imposed on JCB
accordingly;

— order that all the costs of the application for annulment

should be paid by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant manufactures and supplies machinery and
associated parts for earthmoving, excavation, materials hand-
ling and agricultural purposes.

In February 1996, a French company, Central Parts SA, lodged
a complaint with the Commission against
the applicant,
according to which the applicant had taken steps to prevent
Central Parts SA from obtaining supplies for resale of JCB
equipment from the applicant’s authorised distributors in the
United Kingdom.

According to the applicant, it had indeed taken such steps and
had done so pursuant
its standard
distributor agreement with its authorised distributors in the
United Kingdom, this agreement having been notified, dis-
cussed with and approved by the Commission in the 1970s.

to express terms of

By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
applicant had infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by entering into
agreements or concerted practices with authorised distributors,
the object of which was to restrict competition.

The applicant contends that the process leading up to the
contested decision breached its fundamental rights of defence
and its rights under Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the applicant
alleges that
the Commission has failed to act within a
reasonable time, has failed to behave impartially and to apply
the presumption of innocence and has denied the applicant
access to documents on its file to which access should have
been given.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
fallen well short of establishing the alleged infringements to
the requisite legal standard.

The applicant also contends that it is plain from the case-law
on exclusive and selective distribution networks that
the
applicant’s distribution agreement, as notified to the Com-
mission and subject to notified amendments, are eligible for
individual exemption, and the contested decision contains no
reasoned grounds upon which these agreements should be
denied exemption under Article 81(3).

Finally, the applicant disputes the imposition of any fine. It
the conduct wrongly
if not all of
maintains that most
characterised by the Commission as infringing Article 81 is
legitimate conduct referable to and within the scope of
the agreements notified to the Commission and that the
Commission is accordingly prevented by Article 15(5)(a) of
Regulation No 17 from imposing any fine in respect of such
conduct. In any event, the fine imposed is disproportionate.