CELEX: C1999/100/38
Language: en
Date: 1999-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-21/99: Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Dansk Rørindustri A/S (Starpipe) against the Commission of the European Communities

10.4.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 100/19
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in           committed its error without her having at any time been
which it:                                                         aware of it; nor could she reasonably have been expected
                                                                  to have known of it.
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                  Consequently, she pleads infringement, in the present case,
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                  Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri
                                                                  A/S (Starpipe) against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 January 1999 by Marie-Jeanne                                          Communities
Kraus against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                      (Case T-21/99)
                       (Case T-14/99)                                                    (1999/C 100/38)
                      (1999/C 100/37)
                                                                                 (Language of the case: Danish)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European                      An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January                Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
1999 by Marie-Jeanne Kraus, residing in Luxembourg,               1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri A/S (Starpipe), Fredericia,
represented by Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar, with           represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen and Katja Hùegh,
an address for service at his Chambers, 10 Rue Willy              of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in
Goergen, Luxembourg.                                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                  Rue
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the decisions requiring the applicant to repay
    the household allowance received by her during the
    period from November 1986 to February 1998;                   Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(1998) 3117
                                                                      of 21 October 1998 (1), to the extent to which it
                                                                      concerns the applicant, in so far as it finds that the
Ð alternatively, annul the decisions requiring the                    applicant participated in a complex of agreements and
    applicant to repay the household allowance received               concerted practices' which lasted without interruption
    by her during the period from November 1986 to                    from about November/December 1990 to at least
    October 1995;                                                     March or April 1996';
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  Ð annul, in relation to the applicant, the final indent in
                                                                      Article 1 of the Commission Decision, which states
                                                                      that the applicant, in conjunction with the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   producers, in order to protect the cartel from
                                                                      competition from the only substantial non-member,
                                                                      Powerpipe AB (agreed) and (took) concerted measures
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision            to hinder its commercial activity, damage its business
to recover the sum of LUF 793 292 allegedly paid to her               or drive it out of the market altogether';
in error by way of household allowance during the period
from her entry into service in November 1986 to February
1998.
                                                                  Ð reduce the fine imposed on Dansk Rùrindustri A/S;
The applicant denies that she was aware of the irregularity
of the payments in issue, and further denies that they were       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of Dansk
manifestly irregular. In her view, the administration                 Rùrindustri A/S.
 ---pagebreak--- 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