Case T-180/01: Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), balance of payments assistance, fruit-growing, suspension of aid

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 275/17

Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission has misused
its discretion in ordering repayment at Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk
GmbH’s expense of aid totalling DEM 7 100 136. It argues
that the Commission did not take account of Gothaer Fahr-
zeugwerk GmbH’s contribution to the overall result. It adds
that DEM 3300000 were undeniably used in accordance with
the initial objective, and that
the remaining amount of
DEM 3800336 was determined on the basis of a distribution
ration arbitrarily adopted by the Commission, so that the
contested decision is contrary to Community law and void.

The Commission found that these terms and conditions of sale
were contrary to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty since they
restricted parallel imports and exports to other Member States.
This decision is now contested by the applicant.

its Application,

In support of
the applicant contests the
applicability of Article 81(1) EC Treaty on the grounds that
the conditions of sale do not constitute an agreement and they
have no restrictive object or effect. The applicant further claims
that the conditions of sale compensate for a market irregularity
caused by the setting of prices by the Spanish authorities. In
the alternative, the applicant claims the conditions of sale are
eligible for an exemption under Article 81(3) EC Treaty.

Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome plc
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-168/01)

(2001/C 275/32)

(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 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome
plc, having its registered office in Middlesex (UK), represented
by I.S. Forrester Q.C. and A.P.
Schulz of White & Case
Brussels, F. Depoortere, T. Louko and I. Vandenborre of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Brussels, and
S. Martinez Lage of Martinez Lage & Associados

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 8 May 2001;

— take such other or further steps as justice may require;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l. against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-180/01)

(2001/C 275/33)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l.,
represented by Walter Masucci, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European

Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274;

— in the alternative, annul in part the contested decision
and reduce, in proportion with the actual investments
made, the financial contribution allocated to Euroagri
s.r.l. by the Commission’s decision of 3 December 1992;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant notified its new terms and conditions of sale to
the Commission pursuant to Regulation 17/62. The new terms
and conditions of sale of the applicant consisted of two
different pricing systems for its pharmaceutical products. The
first one was used for products to be sold in Spain and financed
by the Spanish Social Security system. In this case the prices
were, according to the applicant, all set by the Spanish
authorities at a low level. The second system applied to
products to be sold outside the scope of the Spanish price
setting system by wholesalers authorised according to Spanish
Law. In the latter system, the prices were set by the applicant.

By this application, the applicant company seeks the annul-
ment of the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274 cancelling the
itself by decision
contribution allocated to the applicant
C(92)3124 of 3 December 1992, pursuant to Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down
provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (1) in the context of
project No 92. IT.06.069 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project
for the use of new “Endovena” technology on fruit trees’.

C 275/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

In support of its claim, the applicant alleges:

— breach of the obligation to state reasons;

— breach of the essential procedural requirements provided
for by the abovementioned Regulation No 4253/88,
specifically with respect to Articles 24 and 25 thereof;

— error of assessment by the defendant vitiating the contest-
ed measure inasmuch as it is illogical and inadequate;

— breach of the principle of proportionality so far as

concerns the claim in the alternative.

(1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25.