Case T-329/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels Midland Company against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, dominant position, economic concentration, fine

C 84/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the defendant, as communi-
cated to her by letters of 13 February 2001 and 23 Febru-
ary 2001, to apply an age limit set at 65 years to freelance
interpreters and therefore to apply that age limit to her;

— annul,

in so far as necessary,

the
applicant’s complaint by the Commission on 7 September
2001, received on 10 September 2001;

the rejection of

— find that the applicant may continue to work as freelance
interpreter, for the Community institutions, beyond the
age of 65;

— make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-

ally assessed at 1 euro;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her arguments, the applicant relies on the same
pleas in law as those put forward in T-153/01 Mercedes
Alvarez Moreno v Commission (OJ 2001 C 275, p. 11).

— annul the applicant’s staff report for 1995-1997 inas-
much as it does not take account of the opinion of the ad
hoc working party, the ad hoc appeals joint working party
and the staff reports Joint Committee, in that it does not
assess his duties as a trade union representative and his
status as an elected member as being part of the duties
which he is required to undertake in his institution;

— make an order as to costs requiring the defendant to pay

the costs and fees incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the
rejection of his complaint seeking the annulment of his staff
report for 1995-1997.

In support of his arguments, he claims that certain assessments
are not justified and that his professional situation and his
career development were adversely affected following his
election to a local staff committee and as a result of his union
activities. He alleges psychological harassment or mobbing
intended to restrict his freedom of association, infringement of
the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of the principle of sound adminis-
tration.

Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef
against Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels
Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-326/01)

(2002/C 84/114)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-329/01)

(2002/C 84/115)

(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 21 December 2001 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Archer
Daniels Midland Company, represented by Professor Carl Otto
Lenz, Ms Lynda Martin Alegi, Mr Edward William Batchelor
and Ms Marta Garcia of Baker & McKenzie, London (United
Kingdom).

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/63

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceed-

ings;

— annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
(Case
COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-
tains to ADM at least to the extent that it finds ADM was
party to an infringement after 4 October 1994;

— annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
(Case
Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-
tains to ADM;

— in the alternative, modify Article 3 of the Decision as it
pertains to ADM, so as to annul or substantially reduce
the fine imposed on ADM therein;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The grounds and main arguments are similar to those raised
in case T-322/01 Roquette Frères/Commission

Action brought on 27 December 2001 by EuroCommerce
A.I.S.B.L. against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-336/01)

(2002/C 84/116)

(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 27 December 2001 by EuroCom-
merce A.I.S.B.L., represented by Mr Pierre V. F. Bos and Mr
Morten Nissen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s Decision dated 9 August 2001
the EC
(Case

relating to proceedings under Article 81 of
Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
No COMP/29.373 — Visa International);

— order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by

EuroCommerce in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an international association with as its aim
the research into and solution of problems concerning trade.
The applicant has lodged in this respect several complaints
with the Commission regarding the non-tariff rules and the
multilateral interchange fees used by payment card organis-
ations. The multilateral interchange fee is paid by the acquiring
bank (the merchant’s bank) to the issuing bank (the customer’s
bank). This fee has, according to the applicant, a direct
influence on the fee that a merchant has to pay to his acquiring
bank for the use of payment cards for payment by his
customers. The non-tariff rules are a set of rules concerning
the issuing and acquiring of payment cards.

The Commission decided, in the contested decision, that there
was no need for any action under Article 81 EC Treaty with
regard to the non-tariff rules. According to the applicant, this
decision violates both the EC Treaty and the EEA agreement.

The applicant claims that the Commission did not respect its
right to be heard. In its comments on the second letter sent
under Article 6 of Commission Regulation 2842/98, the
applicant made a conditional withdrawal of its complaints, in
the belief that the Commission would prohibit the multilateral
interchange fee. This fee, according to the applicant, is closely
intertwined with the non-tariff rules. Later, the Commission
changed its opinion on this point. According to the applicant,
however, it had then no opportunity to give its comments.

in that

the applicant claims that

there has been a
Furthermore,
violation of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and the principle of
sound administration,
the Commission failed to
consider the non-tariff rules and the multilateral interchange
fees together. According to the applicant, they should have
been considered together in order to establish whether or not
they have a detrimental effect on competition. The Com-
mission has cleared the non-tariff rules in the contested
decision and has the intention of clearing the multilateral
interchange fee. The applicant, however, states that these
aspects are closely intertwined and that their joint effect on
competition should have been investigated.