Case T-24/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-01-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), market prices, parent company, restrictive trade practice, subsidiary, tobacco industry

C 82/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

2. order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
EUR 2 500 as compensation for non-material loss suffered;

The applicants claim that the Court should:

3. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official seconded to the Court of
Justice in the interests of the service from 1 March 2002 to 6
October 2003, raises an objection of
the
General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regula-
tions because of a lack of comparison of his merits with those
of other officials in other Directorates General. He also claims
that most of the categories of priority points are illegal because
they are contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and to
the principle of non-discrimination.

illegality against

The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45
of the Staff Regulations, of the second subparagraph of Article
2(1) of the General Provisions implementing Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations, as well as of Article 2(1) and Article 6(3), (4)
and (5) of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of
the Staff Regulations. The applicant also pleads infringement of
the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, equal
treatment and protection of legitimate expectations. The appli-
cant claims finally that there were also procedural irregularities,
misuse of powers, failure to state reasons and to inform him of
various measures and decisions, as well as manifest errors of
assessment.

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commer-
cial Corporation, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corpora-
tion and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-24/05)

(2005/C 82/69)

(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 January 2005 by Standard
Commercial Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina
(USA), Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation, established
in Wilson, North Carolina (USA) and Trans-Continental Leaf
Tobacco Corporation established in Vaduz (Liechtenstein),
represented by M. Odriozola, M.Marañón and A. Emch,
lawyers.

— annul the Decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/
C.38.238/B.2 - Raw Tobacco Spain, insofar as it relates to
the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal fees and

expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission found that the appli-
cants, among other undertakings, infringed Article 81(1) EC by
concluding agreements and/or concerted practices, during the
period 1996-2001, designed to fix each year the (maximum)
average delivery price of each variety of raw tobacco (all quali-
ties) and to share out the quantities of each variety of raw
tobacco to be bought. The Commission further found that for
the last three years (1999 - 2001) they had also agreed among
themselves price brackets per quality grade of each variety of
raw tobacco and additional conditions.

In support of their application the applicants claim first of all
that the Commission misapplied Article 81(1) EC and Article
23 (2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in holding the applicants liable
for the infringement committed by their subsidiary. According
to the applicants the Commission proved neither that the appli-
cants were in a position to exercise decisive influence over
their subsidiary during the whole duration of the infringement
nor that they actually exercised any influence over the subsi-
diary's policy. In the alternative, the applicants also claim that
the Commission stated insufficient reasons for holding them
liable for their subsidiary's infringement.

Further, the applicants claim that the Commission violated the
principle of equal treatment by failing to apply to the appli-
cants the criteria it had applied in excluding liability of other
parent companies for subsidiaries participating in the infringe-
ment in question. This includes failing to take into account that
one of the applicants' interest in its subsidiary was of purely
financial nature even though the Commission had excluded
liability of another parent undertaking on exactly these
grounds.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles
81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4/1/2003 p. 1.