Case T-269/03: Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, merger control, telematics

C 251/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’ Bank Cards
the Commission of
the European
Group against
Communities

disproportionate, since the Commission's investigation of the
notification by the Group was still in progress and there has
been a long and constant tradition of cooperation by the
Group with the Commission's services.

(Case T-266/03)

(2003/C 251/24)

(Language of the case: French)

the Commission of

the European
An action against
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’
Bank Cards Group, whose registered office is in Paris, repre-
sented by Alain Georges and Javier Ruiz Calzado, lawyers.

(1) First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ,

English Special Edition, 1959-1962, p. 87).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Socratec — Satellite
Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-GmbH
against the Commission of the European Communities

— annul the Commission's Decision C(2003) 1524/9 of
7 May 2003, ordering the CB Bank Cards Group and
its subsidiaries to submit
to an investigation under
Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 (1);

(Case T-269/03)

(2003/C 251/25)

(Language of the case: German)

— order the removal from the file of all documents seized
and other evidence brought to the knowledge of the
Commission during the investigation, and their return
to the Group;

the Commission of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 30 July 2003 by Socratec —
Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-
GmbH, Regensburg (Germany), represented by M. Adolf and
M. Lüken, lawyers.

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
the Group in connection with the present action for
annulment.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

COMP/M.2903);

— annul the Commission's Decision of 30 April 2003 (Case

In support of its action, the applicant pleads, first, infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons for the contested decision. As
the Commission failed to state the presumptions it wished to
verify, the applicant found itself unable to grasp the scope of
its duty of cooperation while at the same time preserving its
defence rights. It was also unable to discover whether the
investigation ordered concerned certain measures already
notified to the Commission or other practices. The applicant
also makes a second plea, alleging infringement of
the
principle of proportionality. It first argues that the infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons, alleged in its first plea, has
prevented either the competent national authorities or the
Court of First Instance itself from reviewing the proportional-
ity of the investigation ordered. In the alternative, it argues
is
recourse to an investigation under Article 14(3)
that

— in the alternative, annul the Commission's Decision of
30 April 2003 (Case COMP/M.2903) in so far as the
decision
undertakings
DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and
Cofiroute SA to provide telematic services by means of
the toll system commissioned by the Federal Republic of
Germany;

participating

allows

the

— in the further alternative, order

the Commission to
require DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom
AG and Cofiroute SA to postpone completion of the
notified joint venture Toll Collect GmbH until the condi-

18.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/13

tions in Article 2 of the Commission's Decision COMP/
M.2903 have been met;

Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing in Brussels, represented by
Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas and main arguments

in
The applicant is a German undertaking which is active,
in the area of telematic services for commercial
particular,
vehicles.
is challenging the Commission's decision of
It
30 April 2003, by which the Commission found the acquisi-
tion of joint control over the newly formed joint venture, Toll
Collect GmbH, by DaimlerChrysler AG, Deutsche Telekom AG
and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes SA
(Cofiroute) compatible with the common market and with the
EEA Agreement.

The applicant submits that the Commission approved the
notified concentration following, above all, its acceptance of
the commitments proposed by DaimlerChrysler Services AG
and Deutsche Telekom AG and that in doing so it wrongly
assessed the effects of the concentration on the market for
telematic services even in the light of
the commitments.
Furthermore, the Commission wrongly accepted that the com-
mitments were adequate to solve and wholly eliminate the
competition problem.

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 May
2003 rejecting the applicant's request that the employ-
ment contract be renewed;

— in the alternative, annul the reference to the Rule against
Overlapping contained in administrative notice of
14 November 1996 entitled New Policy under Article 2
(a) of the CEOS;

— in the alternative, order the defendant to make good the
damage suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal to
extend the applicant's contract of employment amount-
ing,
to
all
EUR 101 328,60, together with default interest;

reservations,

necessary

subject

to

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

The applicant also submits that the Commission's definition of
the relevant geographic market was wrong and that its defini-
tion of the relevant product market was incomplete.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its
rights of defence so far as the proposed commitments are
concerned.

Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores
Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-272/03)

(2003/C 251/26)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 4 August 2003 by María

the Commission of

The applicant worked for the Commission as a national expert
on secondment from 1 December 1997 to 30 November
2000. She was then engaged as a member of the temporary
staff from 1 December 2000 to 15 February 2001. Since
16 February 2001 she has been covered by a 3-year contract
which may be extended by a further year. That contract expires
on 30 November 2003 and the applicant requested that it be
extended by a year.

The applicant states that
the request was rejected by the
Commission on the basis of the consistent practice of taking
account of the length of service as national expert on second-
ment when applying the anti-overlap rule. According to that
rule, non-official staff at the Commission must not serve for a
total in excess of 6 years.

In support of her application, the applicant alleges, first, infrin-
gement of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of
the European Communities,
in particular Article 8 thereof,
infringement of other staff rules of the institutions and error
of law. According to the applicant, the Commission was not
entitled to take into account the period during which she had
worked as a national expert on secondment when calculating
her total time at the Commission.