Case T-320/07: Action brought on 24 August 2007 — Jones e.a. v Commission
Date: 2007-08-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), coal, complaint to the Commission, discriminatory price, electrical energy

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 24 August 2007 — Jones e.a. v
Commission

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's Deci-
sion in Case COMP/35.821 of 18 June 2007 by which the
Commission rejected the applicant's complaint made in 1990
that members of its association had been the victims of a price
discrimination as the prices paid by the Central Electricity
Generating Board (‘CEGB’) between 1984-1990 for
coal
produced by members of the applicant was lower than the
prices paid by the CEGB for coal produced by the British Coal
Corporation (‘BCC’), without there being any objective justifica-
tion for that difference in treatment.

The Commission found in the contested decision that there was
a difference between the prices paid by the CEGB to the appli-
cant's members and the prices paid to the BCC, but sustained
that the BCC and the applicant's members did not supply coal
under comparable conditions. The CEGB was therefore justified
in paying higher prices for the BCC's coal in order to ensure
that it would meet its statutory duty to supply the electricity
needed in the United Kingdom.

In support of its application, the applicant contends that the
Commission's finding that the BCC and the applicant's members
did not supply coal under comparable conditions was not
supported by the evidence upon which the Commission based
its decision.

(Case T-320/07)

(2007/C 247/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Glenn Jones and Daphne Jones (Neath, Wales),
FForch-y-Garron Coal Company Ltd (Neath, Wales), Desmond
Ivor Evans and David Raymond Evans (Maesteg, Wales) (repre-
sented by: D.I.W. Jeffreys, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

the applicant submits that

Furthermore,
the payment of a
premium price for the BCC's coal would constitute state aid that
had not been notified and which would therefore be unlawful.

Form of order sought

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission's findings
are inconsistent with a previous Commission decision from
1991 in respect of the same complaint.

regards

the Commission's

As
the applicant's
complaint in relation to the period from 1984 to 1986 on
grounds of inadmissibility and lack of Community interest, the
applicant submits that:

rejection of

— the Commission erred in finding that it no longer enjoys an
exclusive competence under the ECSC Treaty to rule on the
existence of discrimination in the said period;

— the Commission erred in finding that

the applicant's
members can bring claims before the national courts in
respect of the said period; and

— the delay in resolving the issues raised in the applicant's
complaint from 1990 is the result of previous legal errors
made by the Commission.

— Annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 in
Case COMP/37.037 concerning the applicants' complaint of
unlawful price discrimination by the Central Electricity
Generating Board;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs of these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This is an application lodged pursuant
to Article 230 EC
seeking annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007
complaint
(Case COMP/37.037 — SWSMA)
according to which pricing practices adopted by the Central
Electricity Generating Board in the period 1984 to 1990 in rela-
tion to coal producers constituted unlawful price discrimination
towards private coal producers including the applicants, which
was contrary to Article 4(b) of the European Coal and Steel
Community Treaty then in force.

rejecting a

the
The applicants contend that,
Commission has committed a number of fundamental errors of
law and/or of appreciation and thus, the decision should be
annulled.

in reaching this decision,

C 247/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

in which the complainants operated. Moreover,

The applicants claim that the Commission was wrong as a
matter of law to assess the question of price-discrimination on a
country-wide basis rather
than with reference to the local
the
market
applicants submit that the Commission was wrong in stating
that
the licensed private mines could only supply limited
amounts of coal and on a short term basis, taking into account
the size of the mining facilities and British Coal Corporation's
licensing policy. Finally, the applicants claim that the Commis-
sion was wrong to conclude that since the ECSC Treaty has
expired and that it no longer enjoys exclusive competence with
regards to infringements of the latter, a Commission decision
was no longer required before judicial protection was sought
before national courts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants
are similar to those relied on in Case T-318/07 National Associa-
tion of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission.

Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Cheminova and
Others v Commission

Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Plant and Others v
Commission

(Case T-324/07)

Parties

(Case T-326/07)

(2007/C 247/63)

Language of the case: English

(2007/C 247/62)

Language of the case: English

Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark), Cheminova
Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy), Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia,
Bulgaria), Agrodan SA (Madrid, Spain) and Lodi SAS (Grand
(represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van
Fougeray, France)
Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

(Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom),
Applicants: Gerry Plant
(Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom),
Mary Kathleen Plant
(Neath, United Kingdom), William Meyrick
Dennis
Jones
(Swansea, United Kingdom),
J.G. Evans (Ammanford, United
Kingdom), David Vivian Austin (Neath, United Kingdom), D.
Powell
James Rowland McCann
(Neath, United Kingdom), D. B. Diplock (Neath, United
Kingdom), John Phillips (Neath, United Kingdom) and Richard
Thomas Kingston (Swansea, United Kingdom) (represented by:
W. Graham, Solicitor)

(Neath, United Kingdom),

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's Decision dated 18 June 2007 in

Case No. 37037 — SWSMA;

— take such further action as the Court may think just;

— order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings.

— Order

the

annulment

of

Commission

Decision

2007/389/EC;

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1) provides that Member
States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its
active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of
Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning
the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant
protection products containing that substance (2).

fails to consider all

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decision is scientifically incomplete and flawed in that
the scientific evidence on malathion
it
it
submitted to the defendant. According to the applicants,
furthermore violates Articles 4(1), 5(1) of Directive 91/414 and
Article 95(3) EC as the defendant refused to peer review the
most resent data.