Case T-248/04: Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ) against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, financial transaction, merger control, motor vehicle industry, share, subsidiary

C 217/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.8.2004

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Expor-
tadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar)
y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA
European
the Commission of
(Edifa)
Communities

against

the

pharmaceutical products are being exported and in what quan-
tities.

The applicants therefore consider that the Real Decreto in ques-
tion infringes Article 29 of the EC Treaty or Article 10 thereof
in conjunction with Article 29.

(Case T-247/04)

(2004/C 217/57)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ)
against the Commission of the European Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de
Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar)
y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa),
established in Madrid, represented by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the European Commission incorpo-
rated in the letters of 2 April, 6 May and 10 May 2004 by
virtue of which it decided to take no further action in
the complaints registered under numbers P/
respect of
2002/4609 and 2003/5119 (as they relate to the applic-
ability of Article 29 EC) on the ground that Real Decreto
725/2003 of 13 June 2003 does not infringe Article 29 EC
or Article 10 in conjunction with Article 29 EC;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

(Case T-248/04)

(2004/C 217/58)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ),
Södertälje (Sweden), represented by D. Arts and F. Herbert,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 7 April 2004 by
which the Commission approved Volvo's divestment of A
shares through Ainax;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

The present action seeks annulment of the decision contained
in the letters from the European Commission of 2 April and 6
and 10 May 2004,
the complaints put
in that they reject
forward by the applicants (P/2002/4609 and 2003/5119)
against the adoption of Real Decreto 725/2003 of 13 June
2003 inasmuch as it amends certain aspects of Article 100(2)
of Ley 25/1990 on medicinal products.

The Real Decreto requires wholesalers which distribute phar-
maceutical products to notify the health authorities of
the
quantities of medicinal products supplied to pharmacies and
other wholesalers. That information is subsequently provided
to pharmaceutical
laboratories by that public authority. The
applicants consider that pharmaceutical laboratories can thus
effectively take measures to block exports to other Community
countries carried out by exporting wholesalers, by learning
which wholesalers are exporting medicinal products, what

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant states that the Commission's approval of the
concentration between Volvo and Renault Vehicules Indus-
triels (1) was conditional upon Volvo divesting its shares in
Scania (the Scania undertaking). In the contested decision, the
Commission accepted the divestiture proposals of Volvo
according to which Volvo would transfer its remaining Scania
shares to a subsidiary, Ainax. The applicant furthermore states
that the Ainax shares would be distributed as dividend to the
shareholders of Volvo.

According to the applicant, the contested decision infringes the
Scania undertaking provided for in the Commission's decision
of 1 September 2000, as well as Article 6(1)(c) and 6(2) of
Regulation 4064/89 (2).

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

the block of

According to the applicant, the creation of an intermediate
shares currently
structure, Ainax, preserves
controlled by Volvo rather then dispersing it amongst
the
shareholders of Volvo. The applicant furthermore submits that
because Renault has an approximate 20 % shareholding in
Volvo, Renault controls approximately 20 % of Ainax which in
turn controls approximately 25 % of Scania. The applicant
therefore submits that the divestment structure grants Renault,
and Volvo indirectly, a substantial influence over the applicant
and a privileged inside knowledge of
its business secrets.
According to the applicant, it is therefore not able to act as an
independent alternative to the Volvo/Renault VI group.

the form of threats, intimidation and personal and professional
humiliation during the period in which the applicant was a
resident adviser to the Commission's Delegation to Guatemala.
The conduct in question amounted to discrimination which
damaged his professional
life and had serious effects on his
state of health.

The refusal to accede to the application for assistance within
the meaning of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations should there-
fore be regarded as unlawful. The CDR for the period in ques-
tion should also be regarded as unlawful.

(1) Commission Decision of 1 September 2000 declaring a concentra-
tion to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/
M.1980 - 3* VOLVO/RENAULT V.I.) according to Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 4064/89 (OJ C 301, p. 23).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1990 L
257, p. 13).

Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-249/04)

(2004/C 217/59)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Philippe
Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the conduct of Mr Combescot's superiors and
its effect on his professional life, career and therefore on his
state of health is absolutely unlawful and, in consequence
recognise the right to assistance laid down by Article 24 of
the Staff Regulations;

— declare the career development report (CDR) to be unlawful
as a result of the serious and irremediable enmity between
the applicant and his hierarchical superior;

— recognise Mr Cambescot's entitlement to compensation for
loss sustained, both for non-material damage and in respect
of his professional life and career, to be assessed in a sum
not less than EUR 1 000.

(Case T-250/04)

(2004/C 217/60)

(Language of the case: French)

An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 21 June 2004 against
the
Commission of
the European Communities by Philippe
Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

— declare illegal the decision rejecting his application to take
part in the competition for appointment to the post of
Head of Delegation in Colombia covered by the vacancy
notice of 28 May 2003 (COM/091/03); accordingly, declare
the entire competition procedure and the consequent deci-
sion making an appointment to the post to which it related
void;
suffered
damage to his image and professional reputation, and that
the illegal decision excluding him from the competition has
had serious adverse effects on the balance of his mind; and
award him the sum of EUR 100 000.00 as compensation
for damage.

recognise that Philippe Combescot has

Pleas and main arguments adduced in support

takes exception to the defendant's refusal

The applicant
to
admit to the competition procedure his application for the
vacant post of Head of Delegation for Colombia.

In support, the applicant alleges:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case alleges that he suffered as a
result of the conduct of his immediate hierarchical superior in

— infringement of the terms of the vacancy notice, in that the
reason for which his application was purportedly refused
(the fact that he had not had two years' experience as a
Head of Unit) was not provided for in the said vacancy
notice;