CELEX: C2000/149/75
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-70/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer against the Commission of the European Communities

C 149/40              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
— pursuant to Article 229 EC, should it uphold the decision             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer against
    in whole or in part, reduce the fine.                                      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-70/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (2000/C 149/75)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
In the contested decision, the Commission asserts that the
applicant was, between 1977 and 1995, party to an agreement
which had the object and the effect of restricting or distorting        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition in the supply of seamless standard OCTG and line            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
pipe within the common market and which affected trade                  European Communities on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer,
between Members States.                                                 residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
                                                                        of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.
This application raises six main pleas against the Commission’s
factual and legal assessment, namely:                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the contested decision of 24 January 2000;
— manifest error in the assessment of the facts of the case;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
— failure properly to assess the trade barriers which are the
    natural explanation of the applicant’s lack of activity on
    the French, German and Italian markets for the duration             Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the alleged infringement;
                                                                        The applicant has worked since 1984 as a member of the
— breach of essential procedural requirements by preventing             Commission’s temporary staff (interpreter). His temporary
    the applicant from exercising its rights of defence to the full     appointment was renewed a number of times. In 1988 his
    and by the manner in which it obtained the documentary              position as a member of the temporary staff was prolonged
    evidence used against the applicant;                                indefinitely. He was on that occasion also required to take part
                                                                        in the next external open competition for interpreters. In 1989
                                                                        the applicant unsuccessfully applied to sit internal competition
                                                                        COM/LA/2/89. His action against the decision of the selection
— failure to assess properly the evidence on the Commission’s           board in that competition was upheld. He was also successful
    file which seriously undermines not only the finding in             in his action against the decision terminating his appointment
    recital 164 of the decision but also irretrievably weakens          as a member of the temporary staff. Contrary to the agreements
    the validity and accuracy of the key elements of the case           concluded, the Commission decided to re-open and continue
    against the applicant;                                              internal competition COM/LA/2/89, and it called on the
                                                                        applicant to take part in it. The applicant was unsuccessful in
                                                                        that competition. The Commission thereupon terminated his
— failure to assess properly in law the applicant’s partici-            contract for an indefinite period, referring to the decision of
    pation in the alleged infringement; and                             the selection board in the aforementioned internal compe-
                                                                        tition. His appeal against that decision was dismissed. By
                                                                        decision of 24 January 2000 the Commission confirmed the
                                                                        decision to dismiss him. The present action challenges that
— failure to reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, in               decision.
    accordance with the principles laid down in the relevant
    Commission Notices.
                                                                        Grounds of the application:
                                                                        — the decision dismissing the applicant is wrongly based on
                                                                             the decision of the selection board in the aforementioned
                                                                             internal competition not to include him on the list of
                                                                             suitable candidates;
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 149/41
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition                    — the contested decision infringes procedural rules, since it is
    constitute an inappropriate measure by which to give                     based on documents obtained by the Commission in 1994
    effect to the earlier judgments;                                         in the context of an investigation carried out in a separate
                                                                             case; such investigations were furthermore carried out in
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition are                    application of a Commission decision which was in fact
    contrary to the agreements reached between the parties;                  illegally adopted on the basis of both Articles 53 of the
                                                                             EEA Agreement and 85 of the EC Treaty; the contested
                                                                             decision also illegally relies on undated documents from
— the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period was                      an unknown source;
    terminated on the basis of his results in an internal
    competition, whereas, according to a Commission letter,
    failure to pass an external competition alone can constitute         — the contested decision fails to demonstrate the existence of
    a ground for terminating the employment relationship; the                the alleged infringement;
    contested decision dismissing the applicant is not reasoned;
    the dismissal was notified for a date which is legally               — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
    incorrect.                                                               producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an effect on trade between Member States;
                                                                         — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
                                                                             producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an appreciable effect on competition in the EC;
                                                                         — the duration of the infringement found by the Commission
                                                                             must at any event be regarded as erroneous;
Action brought on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   — in the event that the contested decision can be regarded as
                                                                             covering the EU offshore regions and in particular the UK
                                                                             offshore, the Commission has failed to state reasons for its
                          (Case T-71/00)                                     decision;
                         (2000/C 149/76)                                 — the fine imposed on the applicant should be reduced
                                                                             notably on the ground that any alleged agreement between
                                                                             the European producers should have been regarded as
                                                                             separate from the alleged agreement between the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                           and Japanese producers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
Monica Cunningham of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff,
Brussels.
                                                                         Action brought on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission decision of 8 December 1999 in
    case IV/EA/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes;                                                     (Case T-74/00)
— alternatively, to substantially reduce the fine imposed upon                                   (2000/C 149/77)
    the applicant;
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the procedure.                                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan
                                                                         GmbH, of Lüchow, Germany, represented by Ulf Doepner,
The applicant submits that the contested decision should be              Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Düsseldorf,
annulled and/or the fine imposed on it at least substantially            Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
reduced for the following reasons:                                       Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.