CELEX: C1999/100/39
Language: en
Date: 1999-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-22/99: Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Gustave Rose against the Commission of the European Communities

C 100/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.4.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  The applicant further submits that the Decision infringes
                                                                    procedural and substantive requirements, including the
                                                                    principle of equal treatment, which must be complied with
                                                                    when a fine is imposed under Regulation No 17.
A fine of ECU 1 475 000 was imposed on Dansk
Rùrindustri A/S (hereinafter Starpipe') by Article 3(c) of         (1) Commission Decision 99/60/EC relating to a proceeding under
the contested Commission Decision. The fine was imposed                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: Ð Pre-
primarily on the ground that Starpipe, together with a                  Insulated Pipe Cartel), (OJ L 24, 30.1.1999, p. 1).
number of other participants in the so-called pipe cartel',
participated in a complex of agreements and concerted
practices in the pre-insulated pipes sector which originated
in about November/December 1990 among the four
Danish producers, was subsequently extended to other
national markets and . . . by late 1994 consisted of a
comprehensive cartel covering the whole of the common
market', which, so far as Starpipe is concerned, is deemed
to have lasted until at least March or April 1996'.                Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Gustave Rose
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                             (Case T-22/99)
The applicant acknowledges that it infringed Article 85 of                                  (1999/C 100/39)
the Treaty in so far as the Decision states that the
producers divided national markets on the basis of quotas,
but not in so far as it states that the producers also
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
eventually divided up the European market among
themselves. The applicant further acknowledges the
infringement confirmed in the Decision in so far as it is
stated that the producers allocated national markets to
                                                                    An action against the Commission of European
particular producers and arranged the withdrawal of other
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
producers, agreed on prices, and ensured allocation of
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
individual projects to designated producers by
                                                                    1999 by Gustave Rose, residing at Goutroux (Belgium),
manipulating the bidding procedure for those projects.
                                                                    represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6
                                                                    Rue Heinrich Heine.
So far as the temporal and geographical scope of the
acknowledged infringement is concerned, the applicant
can admit only that it participated in the operation of the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
cartel relating to the Danish market during the period
from November/December 1990 to mid-1993, in limited
anti-competitive activities on the German market, and in            Ð annul the express decision made on 9 October 1998
one single instance on the Italian market, after which                   (and notified on 20 October 1998), rejecting the
Starpipe's involvement in the operation of the cartel                    complaint submitted by the applicant to the
ceased entirely for one year before subsequently resuming                appointing authority on 2 June 1998 by which he
in the late summer of 1994.                                              contested the decision not to promote him to grade C 1
                                                                         in the 1998 promotions procedure (decision published
                                                                         in Administrative Notices No 1036 of a 6 April 1998);
The applicant denies that it participated in concerted
measures to protect the cartel against competition from             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
the only significant outside competitor, Powerpipe AB.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
In support of the forms of order which it seeks, the
applicant submits that the Decision is contrary to
Article 85 of the EC Treaty and to Articles 3 and 15 of
Council Regulation No 17 inasmuch as it contains a                  The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the rules
misapplication of the law and an inaccurate assessment of           contained in the Practical Guide to the Procedure for the
the evidence so far as the parts of the Decision referred to        Promotion of Officials of the Commission of the European
in the first and second forms of order sought are                   Communities', as well as breach of the principles of non-
concerned.                                                          discrimination (Article 5 of the Staff Regulations) and the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/21
protection of legitimate expectations and of the duty to            The complaint relates to the following conduct:
have inasmuch as he was refused promotion in 1998
despite the fact that, by virtue of his name having already
been entered on the list of officials most deserving of             Ð concertation between PSA and its concessionaires at
promotion in 1997, his entitlement to promotion should                   national and local level with a view to impeding
have been given priority over that of other officials.                   parallel imports;
                                                                    Ð obstruction of supplies by the exertion of pressure of
He also pleads infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff                foreign concessionaires to dissuade them from
Regulations, inasmuch as the appointing authority did not                supplying vehicles to end-users domiciled in France;
undertake, in a reasonable and duly justified way, an
examination of the comparative merits of the eligible
candidates.                                                         Ð use of the so-called model-year date' sales technique;
                                                                         and
                                                                    Ð the existence of measures accompanying so-called
                                                                         Balladur' State premiums.
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission failed, both
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Garage Trabisco                in its summary of the complaint and in the presentation of
 SA against the Commission of the European Communities              its statement of reasons, with a view to justifying the lack
                                                                    of a sufficient Community interest, to demonstrate the
                       (Case T-26/99)                               partitioning of the markets and the obstruction of
                      (1999/C 100/40)                               supplies, such as the concerted efforts made to prevent
                                                                    access to the parallel imports market by the misuse of
                                                                    the national proedures. Consequently, the defendant
                                                                    institution has failed to fulfil its obligations relating to the
               (Language of the case: French)                       examination of complaints submitted in competition
                                                                    matters.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
1999 by Garage Trabisco SA, established at Cognac
(France), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
Paris Bar,with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.             Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Sigma Tecnologie
                                                                    di Rivestimento SRL against the Commission of the
                                                                                        European Communities
                                                                                            (Case T-28/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                           (1999/C 100/41)
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 16/                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
    17 November 1998;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
                                                                    1999 by Sigma Tecnologie di Rivestimento SRL, whose
                                                                    registered office is in Lonato (Italy), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo
                                                                    Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an adress for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er 51.
By its action, the applicant company contests the decision
of the Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by it
concerning the steps taken by the Peugeot Group (PSA)               The applicant claims that the Court should:
and certain of its concessionaires to impede its activities as
an independent agent/reseller, pursuant to an illegal
agreement between PSA and its concessionaires covering              Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(1998) 3117
the whole of the territory of France.                                    final of 21 October 1998 (Case IV/35.691/E-4