Case T-51/01: Action brought on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, professional career, regulations for civil servants

C 186/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 28 February 2001 by François Vainker
and Brenda Vainker against the European Parliament

(Case T-48/01)

(2001/C 186/12)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 February 2001 by François Vainker and Brenda Vainker,
represented by John Grayston and André Bywater of Eversheds,
Brussels (Belgium).

The first applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay certain amounts in compen-

sation to the first applicant;

— interest of 8 % on the amount eventually awarded under
the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European
Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
pational disease; and

— any other award of interest payment which the Court

thinks just and appropriate; and

— either an annuity to the first applicant from the age of 62
to compensate him for loss of pension rights, or, such
capital sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono.

The second applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay certain amounts to the second
applicant for the pain and suffering caused her by the
defendant’s conduct during the procedure concerning the
application by the first applicant for recognition that the
first applicant is suffering from an occupational disease
and the request for compensation arising thereby, and for
compensation under the said for non-reimbursed medical
expenses.

The joint applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the joint applicants’ costs in
their entirety, including this action before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first applicant, a former official of the defendant, contrac-
ted an illness that later caused him to be placed on permanent
invalidity. He considers that this illness is an occupational
disease, contracted as a direct result of the institution’s failure
to put in place and/or maintain a safe system of work, and for
which he has requested recognition by the defendant as
well as compensation in respect thereof. According to the
applicants, this request was later granted, although the defend-
ant has yet to complete the procedure in respect of the
compensation due.

Under Articles 236 and 288 EC the first applicant claims
damages for the loss allegedly caused to him by the disease
and damages for the pain and suffering caused to him by the
defendant’s alleged mishandling of his request.

The second applicant seeks damages for the pain and suffering
which she claims to have suffered by the defendant’s alleged
mishandling of her husband’s request.

Action brought on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-51/01)

(2001/C 186/13)

(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 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia,
residing in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions not to retain him as acting Head of
Unit during a period of restructuring and rejecting his
application for the posts of Head of Unit of Units DG
EAC/A/4, DG EAC/C/2 and DG EAC/C/5 and to reappoint
him ad personam adviser in the Education and Culture
Directorate-General;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was Head of Unit at Directorate-General XXI-
I/A/4 ‘Promotion of
linguistic ability, open and distance
learning in education, adult education’. On 24 September
1999, the Commission decided to create a new ‘Education,
Audiovisual and Culture’ Directorate-General regrouping the
services of the former DG X (partially) and the former DG XXII
and reducing the number of Units from 39 to 28. The
applicant’s former Unit was divided into three new Units. The
Commission decided to reject the applicant’s application for
each of the three posts of Head of Unit and to reappoint him
as ad personam adviser in the new Directorate-General.

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.