Case T-48/02: Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerĳ Haacht N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), beverage industry, fine, restrictive trade practice

C 109/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

Finally, the applicants submit that the objectives of the Council
in the directives cited are not covered by Community law and
are therefore a direct cause of the refusal to disclose the
accounts, and that the causal link between the objectives of
the directive and the damage caused and anticipated is thus
clear.

(1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-
ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests
of members and others, are required by Member States of
companies within the meaning of
the second paragraph of
Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
1968(I), p. 41).

(2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on
Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).

Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerij
Haacht N.V. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-48/02)

(2002/C 109/118)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerij
Haacht N.V., established at Boortmeerbeek (Belgium), rep-
resented by Yves van Gerven, Frédéric Louis and Hendrik
Viane, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 4 of the decision in issue, in so far as it
concerns Brouwerij Haacht N.V. and, in so far as may be
necessary, order that no fine be imposed on Brouwerij
Haacht N.V. or substantially reduce the fine;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in any event.

The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to comply
with the obligation to provide a statement of reasons as
prescribed by Article 253 of the EC Treaty, and with the
guidelines for the calculation of
fines. According to the
applicant, the Commission, in determining the actual econ-
omic power of the parties concerned, failed to define the
relevant market. It maintains that the decision does not make
it clear whether the relevant market is the private label market
or the beer market in general. Moreover, the Commission
over-estimated the economic power of the applicant in the
market for private label beer, if and in so far as it is that market
which is to be regarded as the relevant market. The applicant
further argues that the Commission wrongly characterised the
role played by the applicant in the cartel in question as an
active role. According to the applicant,
its role must be
regarded as having been purely passive, or at least as less
active.

the significance of

Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the Notice on
Cooperation and of the principle of equal treatment. According
to the applicant, the Commission failed to take sufficient
the applicant’s statements
account of
proving the infringement of
the rules. The Commission
consequently treated similar situations in a dissimilar way, by
not applying the same reduction in the fine where there was a
comparable level of cooperation. Moreover, the Commission
treated dissimilar situations in a similar way, by applying the
same reduction in the fines imposed on the applicant and on
parties who cooperated less, or not at all, in the Commission’s
investigation.

Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Natio-
nale against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-49/02)

(2002/C 109/119)

(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 26 February 2002 by Brasserie
Nationale, established at Bascharage (Luxembourg), represent-
ed by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jean-Louis Schiltz, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against the decision in so far as it
imposes a fine on the applicant in consequence of the private
label cartel on the Belgian beer market.

— annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 5 Decem-
ber 2001 in Case COMP/37800/F3 — Brasseries Luxem-

The applicant claims that the Court should: