Case T-77/02: Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment, automation, competition, economic concentration, electrical equipment, electricity supply, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality

18.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Take any other measure it may consider appropriate;

In the present case, the applicant, a Spanish frozen tunny
producers’ organisation which has previously contested before
the Court of First Instance a number of Commission regu-
lations providing for compensation to producer organisations
for tuna delivered to the processing industry for the quarters
between 1 July 1999 and 31 December 2000 (2), is challenging
the regulation relating to the period between 1 January and
31 March 2001.

The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-142/01 (3).

(1) OJ 2001 L 337, p. 25.
(2) Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01.
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.

Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric
S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-77/02)

(2002/C 118/46)

(Language of the case: French)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the parent company of a group which is active
in the production and sale of products and systems in the
sectors of distribution of electricity,
industrial control and
automation. On 16 February 2001 it formally informed the
Commission of the concentration it intended to enter into
with Legrand, the parent company of a group operating in the
production and sale of low-voltage electrical equipment.

The commission declared the operation incompatible with
the common market. The applicant brought an action for
annulment of that decision (Case T-310/01; notice published
in OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 15). The Commission then ordered
the applicant, on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4064/89 (1), to separate from Legrand. The latter
decision is the subject of the present proceedings.

The applicant observes, first, that in its opinion the decision
declaring the concentration incompatible with the common
market should be annulled. Since the decision at issue in the
present action is the direct consequence of the first decision,
the unlawfulness of the first decision entails the unlawfulness
of the present decision.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Schneider
Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-
resented by Antoine Winckler and Eric de La Serre, lawyers.

The applicant observes further that the effect of the contested
decision is to deprive the applicant of its lawfully held rights
of property.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul in its entirety, and in the alternative in part, the
Commission’s decision of 30 January 2002 requiring
undertakings to be separated (Case COMP/M.2283 —
Schneider/Legrand) on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;

In support of the present application, the applicant claims,
first, that there has been an infringement of its right of access
to the case-file and its right to a proper hearing. The applicant
also considers that the report of the hearing officer did not
examine compliance with the rights of the defence throughout
the procedure. The applicant also claims that there was a
breach of the obligation to state reasons.

C 118/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2002

The applicant further claims that there was a violation of
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It submits that
there is no effective remedy before a court with full jurisdiction
against decisions of the Commission concerning the control
of concentrations. The Commission must
therefore itself
comply fully with the principle of impartiality. To that end,
the investigative and decision-making functions must, in the
applicant’s view, be entrusted to different persons or bodies,
which was not the case.

The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the general
principle of Community law that any person whose rights have
been infringed is entitled to an effective remedy. According to
the applicant, the contested decision interferes with the action
brought by the applicant against the decision declaring the
operation incompatible with the common market. Any annul-
ment which might follow from that first application would be
deprived of a great part of its effect as a result of the decision
at issue in the present application. The contested decision thus
also constitutes an infringement of the principle of good
administration, given that it obliged the applicant to bring a
fresh application in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the
first application.

The applicant then claims that the Commission exceeded its
territorial
jurisdiction by laying down certain conditions
for the separation. The applicant further submits that the
Commission did not comply with Article 8(4) of Regulation
No 4064/89. That article, according to the applicant, requires
the Commission to restore effective competition, not to restore
competitors in the market in question, as was done in the
contested decision. In that decision, finally, the Commission
also failed to comply with the general principle of pro-
portionality and made manifest errors of assessment.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of
30.12.1989, p. 1, republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990, p. 13).

Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
the European Central Bank

(Case T-83/02)

(2002/C 118/47)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the formal warning given by letter of 28.2.2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an employee of the defendant, argues in support
of his claim that the formal warning at issue is null and void,
inasmuch as it is based on incorrect factual allegations, and
that the complaints on which that warning is based are totally
unjustified. The applicant’s conduct does not reflect any
continuing pattern of poor performance, and the applicant has
adequately performed his contractual duties.

Furthermore, the defendant is precluded by the obligation of
an employer to have regard for the welfare and interests of his
employees from taking into account certain facts by way of
justification for the giving of
issue. An
employer is under an obligation forthwith to rebuke the
person concerned in respect of any matters on which he
proposes to rely by way of justification for the adoption of
measures adversely affecting the employee. In addition, the
defendant’s conduct infringes the European rules on data
protection.

the warning at