CELEX: C2003/112/69
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-78/03: Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères against the Commission of the European Communities

C 112/36                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
                                                                           Commission was under an obligation to act following the
                                                                           applicant’s observations. Thus the Commission should either
This action is brought against the same Decision as has already            have initiated a procedure against the company against which
been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                         the complaint had been made or adopted a definitive decision
                                                                           rejecting the complaint.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                           The applicant further claims that the Commission did not
forward in that case.
                                                                           adopt a position within a reasonable period since, 16 months
                                                                           after the applicant submitted its observations and 9 years after
                                                                           the initial complaint was lodged, the Commission has still not
                                                                           adopted a definitive position.
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Industrie Riunite
                           (Case T-78/03)                                  Odolesi I.R.O. S.p.A. against the Commission of the
                                                                                               European Communities
                         (2003/C 112/69)
                                                                                                    (Case T-79/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 112/70)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
whose registered office is in Sorgues (France), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Nicole Coutrelis, lawyer.                                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 27 February 2003 by the above
                                                                           applicant, represented by Prof. A. Giardina, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      declare, pursuant to Article 232 of the Treaty, that the
       Commission has failed to adopt a decision following the
       complaint submitted by the company Haladjian on                     —     annul the contested decision;
       18 October 1993;
                                                                           —     in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    IRO in the decision;
                                                                           —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Nearly 10 years ago, the applicant submitted a complaint to
the Commission concerning an infringement by Caterpillar of                This action is brought against the same Decision as has already
Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. The applicant states that             been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.
the inquiry into the case was unusually long and that it was
only 8 years later that the Commission sent it a letter advising
of its intention to reject the complaint. The applicant submitted          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
its observations on that letter and waited a year before putting           forward in that case.
the Commission on notice. It points out furthermore that the
Commission had still not adopted a position when the present
action was lodged.