Case C-109/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 17 December 2003 in the case of Dr Karl Robert Kranemannagainst Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, allowances and expenses, interpretation of the law, national law, traineeship

C 106/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Third, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 81(1) EC and
the principle that reasons must be given by treating as admis-
sible the evidence submitted by the Commission concerning
the duration of the alleged collective exclusive dealing agree-
ments. Of significance in this regard are (i) the fact that no
(ii) the fact that, precisely in
substantive grounds are given;
view of the lack of any evidence of a breach over the periods
from 12 March 1986 to 28 February 1989 and from
18 November 1991 to 25 February 1994, any judicial finding
that a breach occurred over those periods ought to have been
made subject to more stringent requirements as to justificatory
reasoning; and (iii) the fact that,
in its examination of the
evidence submitted by the Commission, the Court of First
Instance took no account whatever of the aspect of duration.

Fourth, the Court of First Instance infringed the principle that
reasons must be given, in particular by failing to address, or by
inaccurately reproducing, arguments set out by FEG. The
reasoning of the judgment of the Court of First Instance with
regard to the alleged infringements by FEG in the area of
pricing points to such serious shortcomings that section II.D of
the judgment cannot stand. Furthermore,
in a number of
sections the Court of First Instance breached Article 81(1) EC
by defining an agreement as being mutually agreed actual
conduct without also establishing that the agreement had been
translated into de facto conduct.

Fifth, the Court of First Instance infringed Community law, or
at least misapplied established Community case-law, by attri-
buting to FEG the alleged extensions of the collective exclusive
dealing arrangements to suppliers outside the Netherlands
Association of Exclusive Representatives in the Electrotechnical
Sector (NAVEG). The Court of First Instance thereby disre-
garded the fact that FEG did not play any separate determinant
role in bringing about
the conduct alleged. The Court's
reasoning is also incomprehensible in view of the fact that it
assumes FEG's direct involvement on the basis of divergent
joint action by separate groups of members, notwithstanding
the facts (i) that FEG was not involved in giving rise to or
implementing the action; (ii) that the Court did not examine
further whether any potential agreement on the part of FEG
with the joint action was expressed through its conduct; and
(iii) that the Commission's file contained explicit evidence to
the contrary which demonstrated that FEG had not been
involved in any conscious and deliberate conduct.

Sixth, the Court of First Instance infringed and/or misapplied
Community law, in particular Article 15(2) of Regulation No
17/62, and in any event infringed and/or misapplied generally
applicable principles of Community law in regard to stating

reasons for (judicial) decisions and in regard to proportionality,
in its determination of the fine by concluding that the argu-
ments adduced by FEG and TU against
the Commission's
determination of the duration of the infringements in the deci-
sion had to be rejected.

Seventh, the Court of First Instance infringed and/or misapplied
Community law, in particular Article 15(2) of Regulation No
17/62, and in any event infringed and/or misapplied generally
applicable principles of Community law in regard to stating
reasons for (judicial) decisions and in regard to proportionality,
in its determination of the fine by concluding that the appli-
cants had not adduced a single element that would justify the
Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdic-
tion,
in considering granting a further reduction in the fine
imposed on FEG. The Court of First Instance, however, does
not discuss the fact that it, unlike the Commission in the deci-
sion, makes the Commission entirely responsible for the excep-
tionally long duration of the procedure. Furthermore, the extre-
mely small reduction in the fine which the Commission itself
imposed does not allay the harm suffered by FEG as a result of
that exceptionally long duration.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of 17 December 2003 in the case of
Dr Karl Robert Kranemann against Land Nordrhein-West-
falen

(Case C-109/04)

(2004/C 106/45)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
of 17 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 2
March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Karl
Robert Kranemann against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the
following question:

Is a national legal provision under which a trainee lawyer who
completes part of his prescribed training at a place of his
choosing in another Member State is entitled to reimbursement
of travelling expenses only to the amount incurred for the
domestic stretch of the journey compatible with Article 39 EC?