CELEX: C1998/007/66
Language: en
Date: 1998-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Thierry Bigard against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-284/97)

C 7/24                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10. 1. 98
Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Thierry Bigard                Ð order the Commission in any event to pay the costs
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.
                       (Case T-284/97)
                          (98/C 7/66)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   The applicant, a transport company based in Finland,
An action against the Commission of the European                   seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision that
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  may be contained in a letter of 10 October 1997, in so far
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October                 as, by that letter, the Commission took a formal position
1997 by Thierry Bigard, residing at Bridel (Luxembourg),           in response to a formal request to the Commission to
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and                 adopt a decision pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire             concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger
Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.                                   Regulation), in relation to a concentration or series of
                                                                   concentrations in 1995 between two Finnish banking
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        groups namely Union Bank of Finland (UBF) and
                                                                   Kansallis-Osake-Pankki (KOP), creating a new merged
Ð annul the decisions expressly rejecting his request for          banking entity under the name of Merita Oy. The
    reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in                  concentration was not notified to the Commission in
    respect of household grants,                                   accordance with the procedure laid down in the
                                                                   abovementioned Regulation.
Ð order the defendant to reimburse to him all sums
    wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the            The contested decision is essentially based on the
    rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each                  considerations that the concentration should not have a
    deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,            Community dimension and that, in any case, the two-
                                                                   thirds rule laid down in the first subparagraph of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Article 1 (2) of the Merger Regulation should be
                                                                   applicable. Moreover, the period of two years which
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                elapsed between the announcement of the merger and the
                                                                   submission of the complaint constituted unreasonable
The pleas in law and arguments advanced by the applicant           delay.
in support of his claims are the same as those in Case
T-181/97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice (1).
                                                                   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
(1) OJ C 252, 16. 8. 1997, p. 35.                                  contested decision:
                                                                   Ð infringes essential procedural requirements, in so far
                                                                       as, on one hand, the letter of 10 October 1997 fails to
                                                                       indicate whether the act has been adopted by the
                                                                       college of Commissioners as such or by the Director
Action brought on 3 November 1997 by Kuljetusliike                     who signed it and, on the other hand, before formally
Pynnönen Oy against the Commission of the European                     rejecting the complaint, the Commission has neither
                         Communities                                   indicated its provisional views nor assured appropriate
                       (Case T-285/97)                                 access to the file,
                          (98/C 7/67)
                                                                   Ð has infringed the Treaty and rules relating to its
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       application, in so far as the Commission erred in law
                                                                       in stating that in the absence of a complaints
An action against the Commission of the European                       procedure it can take no decision. According to the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      applicant, the Commission has jurisdiction to reject a
Instance of the European Communities on 3 November                     complaint that an unnotified concentration has a
1997 by Kuljetusliike Pynnönen Oy, represented by                      Community dimension, just as, in the field of State
Nicholas Forwood QC and Professor Zacharias                            aid, it has the power to adopt a decision rejecting a
Sundström, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                State aid complaint on the ground that the measures
the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, L-2010                             complained of do not constitute State aid.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        As to the substance of the applicant's contention with
                                                                   regard to Article 8 (3) of the Merger Regulation, it is
Ð annul the letter of 10 October 1997, in so far as it             submitted that the agreed bid announced in February
    contains or communicates any decision or act of the            1995 constituted one or more concentrations with a
    Commission in response to the applicant's request              Community dimension, both UBF and KOP having
    pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty,                      worldwide and EC turnover in excess of the limits set by