Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

14.9.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219/21

**Action brought on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau against** Moreover, the applicant alleges inadequate statement of
**Commission of the European Communities** reasons for the decision. According to the applicant, the
Commission did not investigate the complaint on the basis of
Article 82 of the EC Treaty and did not provide reasons for the
rejection of that part of the complaint. According to the
**(Case T-193/02)**
applicant, FIFA holds a dominant position in the market in
football and abusesits position in the related market in services
linked to player transfers.
(2002/C 219/51)

The applicant further alleges error of assessment in that, in his
_(Language of the case: French)_ view, FIFA’s rules do not comply with Article 81 of the EC
Treaty and that those rules cannot benefit from an exemption
under Article 81(3).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- The applicant also claims that the Commission infringed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the Article 49 of the EC Treaty. In his view, the Commission does
European Communities on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau, not have the power implicitly to confer a power to lay down
residing in Nantes (France), represented by Marguerite Faucon- rules on the awarding of diplomas on FIFA.
net, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of the Commission of 15 April 2002;

— **Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen**
order the Commission to pay the cost.
**GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-**
**munities**

**(Case T-196/02)**

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

(2002/C 219/52)

On 23 March 1998, the applicant lodged a complaint with the
_(Language of the Case: German)_
Commission arguing that the rules applied by FIFA to players’
agents were contrary to Community law. That complaint was
registered by the Commission which then carried out a
thorough investigation. Having heard no more as to progress
on his case, the applicant on 31 January 2001 placed the
An action against the Commission of the European CommuniCommission on notice and on 31 May 2001 brought an action
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for failure to act (Case T-121/00 OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30). On
European Communities on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichs3 August 2001 the Commission wrote to the applicant
hafen GmbH of Friedrichshafen (Germany), represented by
informing him of its intention not to uphold his complaint.
F. Montag and T. Lüubig, Lawyers.
After receiving the applicant’s comments, the Commission
rejected the applicant’s complaint in view of the fact that the
most restrictive provisions were repealed after proceedings
were initiated. In the present case, the applicant contests that The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision.

—
annul Article 3(2) of the Commission’s Decision of
9 April 2002 on German State aid to SKL Motoren- und
Systembautechnik GmbH in so far as Germany isrequired
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,
manifest error of assessment of the facts and of the law. by those provisions to recover a sum of EUR 2,71 million
(DEM 5,30 million) from MTU Motoren- und TurbinenAccording to the applicant, the Commission’s statement that
Union Friedrichshafen GmbH;
the most restrictive of the provisions of FIFA’s rules have been
repealed iswrong. Furthermore, other aspects of the rules have

—
not been correctly assessed either. order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 219/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.9.2002

_Pleas in law and main arguments_ **Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia**
**against Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-205/02)**

By this action the applicant is contesting the obligation
imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany by the Com- (2002/C 219/53)
mission in Article 3(2) of the contested decision to recover the
sum of EUR 2,71 million from the applicant. The applicant
claims that the Commission’s findings which led to the
_(Language of the case: Spanish)_
adoption of Article 3(2) of the contested decision are in many
regards, both substantive and procedural, incorrect.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador
The applicant contends that the Commission’s claim against
Garcia, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón Garcia
the applicant under State aid law is based exclusively on the
Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.
allegation that the applicant acquired certain know-how from
SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH (‘SKL-M’) under a
reciprocal licensing and cooperation agreement in 1997 for a
purchase price of DEM 6,71 million, when the actual costs The applicant claims that the Court should:
incurred by SKL-M in developing that know-how exceeded the
sale price. The applicant merely acquired the right to use the —
annul the decision of the appointing authority of
know-how, and theconsideration it paid to SKL-M far exceeded
the actual value of the know-how, so that the factual criterion 27 March 2002 refusing to grant the expatriation allowance and, in consequence, the other related allowances;
that the applicant must have received favourable treatment
under Article 87(1) EC is not met.

—
order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant also claims that the Commission has failed to
show that the State was accountable for the conduct of SKL-M _Pleas in law and main arguments_
in concluding the licensing and cooperation agreement or the
agreement between the applicant and SKL-M’s insolvency
administrator in 2000. The defendant in the present case contests the refusal of the
appointing authority to grant the expatriation allowance and
related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations).

The applicant further contends that the applicant did not
receive favourable treatment meeting the criteria for aid In support of her arguments, the applicant claims:
conferring a competitiveadvantage. Moreover the Commission
has not shown any actual or potentialdistortion of competition — manifest error of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the
on the markets on which the applicant is active, or any contested decision does not consider the work she did for
restriction of trade.
a Delegation of an Autonomous Community in Brussels
as ‘work done for another State’ nor the work done by
her for the European Parliament as ‘work done for an
international organisation’ within the meaning of the
Staff Regulations as an exception to the reference period.

Finally the applicant claims that, by one sidedly taking

—
account of the unsubstantiated allegations of the insolvency breach of the duty to provide reasons.
administrator, the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to assess
the facts impartially and completely. —
breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that the
appointing authority treated essentially similar situations
differently.