Case T-411/05: Action brought on  18 November 2005  — Gerolf Annemans v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), dominant position, price agreement, telecommunications industry

C 36/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2006

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2005
— Ruiz Bravo-Villasante v Commission

— Declare void the European Commission's decision of 5
September 2005 (Case COMP/39.225) in accordance with
the first paragraph of Article 231 of the EC Treaty.

(Case T-507/04) (1)

(Officials — Action for annulment — Time-limit — Inad-
missibility)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(2006/C 36/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

The applicant states that he has lodged a complaint against
Belgacom and Telenet with the Commission, alleging infringe-
ment of Articles 81 and 82 EC on the market for broadband
internet connections to end users.

Applicant: Arturo Ruiz Bravo-Villasante (Madrid, Spain) (repre-
sented by: J. Fuertes Suárez, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

In response, the Commission informed the applicant that at
that time it saw no reason, in view of the facts alleged by the
applicant, to initiate a further investigation and that its point of
view, based on the information available to its services,
is
provisional whilst awaiting additional indications that the appli-
cant might wish to submit.

Application for

Annulment of the decision of the selection board for competi-
tion COM/B/2/02 to award the applicant a mark lower than
the pass mark in the oral test and not to include him on the
reserve list for that competition

Operative part of the Order

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Gerolf Anne-
mans v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-411/05)

(2006/C 36/69)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Gerolf Annemans
lawyer)

(represented by: C. Symons,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant submits, first, that it is not for the complainant
to search for proof of his complaint, but that this is for the
Commission itself on the basis of the substantive presumptions,
advanced by the complainant.

According to the applicant, the Commission's statement that
providers often determine their prices by reference to the
market leader is an insufficient explanation regarding the ques-
tion whether the almost non-existent difference between the
internet prices of Telecom and Telenet is a result of pure coin-
cidence in the free market or of a breach of Article 81 EC.

The applicant also submits that although higher prices in
Belgium, cited by him in his application, do not in themselves
prove that there has been an infringement of Article 82 EC,
neither do they prove that there has been no infringement. For
that reason the Commission cannot, on that basis, clear the
undertakings at issue of infringements of Article 82 EC.

The applicant also states that the Commission is wrong to
doubt that Belgacom, and Telenet have a dominant position on
the Belgian market. The applicant states that both operators
apply approximately the same high prices and between them
have almost 90 % of the Belgian market for broadband Internet
access. The applicant also submits that no conclusion may be
drawn from the fact that there are competitive and lower-price
internet connections with lower download speed on the
market. According to the applicant, the Commission contra-
dicts itself moreover when it argues that, on the one hand, the
Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie
(BIPT) guarantees competition and, on the other hand, that this
institution is currently investigating whether competition on
the Belgian market is indeed thoroughly guaranteed.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission fails to
substantiate its claim that there is an insufficient community
interest.