Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2001 in Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility)
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, European Commission, balance of payments assistance, fruit-growing, suspension of aid

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/21

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

Pleas in law and main arguments

of 10 September 2001

in Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl v Commission of the
European Communities

(Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility)

The applicant is a French tyre manufacturer charged, in the
contested decision, with imposing on its dealers general price
conditions and other commercial practices that have been the
subject of a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC
Treaty.

(2001/C 331/35)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl, established in Monte Vidon
Combatte (Italy), represented by W. Massucci, avocat, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Visag-
gio) — application for suspension of the operation of Com-
mission Decision C(2001) 1274 of 6 June 2001 cancelling the
aid granted to the company Euroagri under Commission
Decision C(92) 3124 of 3 December 1992 in the context of
project No 92.IT.06.069 — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 10 September 2001, in which
he:

1. Dismissed the application for interim relief;

2. Ordered that the costs be reserved.

Action brought on 4 September 2001 by Manufacture
Française des Pneumatiques Michelin against the Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-203/01)

(2001/C 331/36)

(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 4 September 2001 by Manufacture
Française des Pneumatiques Michelin, established in Clermont-
Ferrand (France), represented by Jean-François Bellis, Markus
Wellinger, Denis Waelbroeck and Mats Johnsson, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision of 20 June 2001 in
Case COM/E-2/36.041 — PO — Michelin relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC,

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

The Commission challenges, first, the system of discounts,
including quantitative rebates which, according to the Com-
mission, constitute an abuse. The applicant claims that the
contested decision misinterprets Article 82 EC. The Com-
mission wrongly tries to claim that an undertaking in a
dominant position may not take advantage of a system of
discounts, and the system of rebates for quantity is not, in
practice, a ‘loyalty inducing’ abuse as the Commission claims.
Further the system does not have a partitioning effect, nor is it
unfair.

the applicant has introduced premiums,

Second, by the contested decision the Commission complains
including a
that
is
‘service premium’ which, according to the Commission,
unfair. The applicant claims that the decision whether a
condition is ‘unfair’ or not must be based on objective factors,
and not on a mere subjective assessment by the Commission,
and that
the rules
the Commission has not shown that
implementing the service premium are unfair. The applicant
further denies the allegedly ‘loyalty inducing’ nature of that
premium. The fact that an undertaking obtains market infor-
mation from its dealers cannot be regarded as an abuse, but as
falling strictly within the bounds of normal competition.

Third, the Commission considers that the conditions imposed
on the dealers who are members of the ‘Friends of Michelin
Club’ by the ‘Commercial Cooperation Agreement’ constitute
an abuse. The applicant states that the purpose of the Club
was to improve professional standards amongst dealers, and
that the agreement is not in any way exclusive. The applicant
denies that the member dealers are under a duty to achieve a
certain percentage of their turnover with sales of Michelin
products, and claims that the Commission has infringed the
rules on the taking of evidence. The applicant claims that the
accusations of the Commission as regards the other obligations
of the members of the Club are based on systematic prejudice
against the applicant, a subjective and flawed interpretation of
the facts, and on ignorance of economic reality.

Further the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to
carry out a detailed analysis of the effects of the practices in
issue.