CELEX: C1995/101/40
Language: en
Date: 1995-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 February 1995 by the Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-48/95)

No C 101/20         HEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              22 . 4 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Lastly, the contested Regulation is in breach of the Lomé
                                                                     Convention, inasmuch as neither the purpose nor the effect
— annul the contested regulation, with all the legal                 of Protocol 5 to the Convention and the preamble thereto
      consequences flowing therefrom, and order the                  is to place non-traditional bananas in a less favourable
      Commission to pay the costs.                                   position than their Latin American competitors.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, three companies handling the importation
and marketing of 70% of the banana production of the
Côte d'Ivoire, contest Commission Regulation (EC )
No 3224/94, inasmuch as it disregards the provisions of the          Action brought on 20 February 1995 by the Bundesverband
basic regulation in the banana sector.                               der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV against the Commission
                                                                                      of the European Communities
Following the adoption by the Council of Regulation ( EEC )                                   (Case T-48/95 )
No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in                                          ( 95/C 101/40 )
bananas, a number of Latin American banana-producing
countries applied, pursuant to Article XXIII ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of
GATT, for the setting up of a panel, which found that the                            (Language of the case: German)
Community rules in the matter were incompatible in several
respects with GATT, in particular those relating to specific         An action against the Commission of the European
duties paid on the importation of bananas, preferential              Communities was brought before the Court of First
rights granted by the EEC to ACP countries in respect of             Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
bananas and the grant of import licences allowing access to          1995 by the Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie
imports within the framework of the tariff quota provided            eV of Cologne (Federal Republic of Germany), represented
for .                                                                by Jochen Burrichter, Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In those circumstances, the Commission negotiated with               Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
Costa Rica, Colombia, Nicaragua and Venezuela a
Framework Agreement on Bananas which was initialled in
Brussels and annexed to the Marrakesh General Agreement              The applicant claims that the Court should:
on the WTO . That Framework Agreement had the effect, in
particular, of modifying the rules governing the global tariff       — annul Articles 1,2, 3 ( 3 ), 4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) (a ) and 9 ( 5 ) of
quota . The operative part of the contested regulation sets              the Decision of the Commission of 30 November 1994
out, for all practical purposes, the provisions of the                   ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement),
Framework Agreement.
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant companies plead, first, an infringement of
essential procedural requirements, in that the contested             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
regulation was adopted, contrary to the provisions of
Article 27 of the basic Regulation, without the Management             L The applicant pleads infringement of the rules
Committee for Bananas having delivered an opinion within                   governing administrative procedure .
the time allowed by its Chairman.
Moreover, the contested Regulation, which is deemed,                       1 . Substantial parts of the statement of objections
within the legislative hierarchy, to constitute a Regulation                   forming an inseparable whole, namely the so-called
implementing the basic Regulation in the banana sector,                        'national' parts, were not communicated to the
disregards the provisions of that basic Regulation.                            applicant.
According to the applicants, Article 1 of the contested
Regulation, which divides the tariff quota up into specific                2 . It was not clear from the statement of objections
quotas and creates a quota of 90 000 tonnes in favour of the                   which matters were objected to .
Dominican Republic and other ACP States concerning
traditional quantities, and Article 2, which provides, within              3 . The Commission did not give the applicant full
the limits of those quotas, for the release for free circulation               access to the file .
of bananas originating in various Latin American countries,
including bananas dispatched before 20 December 1994,                      4. The Commission changed the factual and legal
are contrary to Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 , which                            nature of the objections made against the applicant
contains no such provisions .                                                  without giving it a fresh opportunity to submit its
                                                                               comments .
If the contested Regulation purports to be based on the
agreements concluded in the course of the Uruguay Round                    5 . The Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to
of multilateral trade negotiations, a further Council                          provide the Advisory Committee on Restrictive
regulation should have been adopted to take account of that                    Practices and Dominant Positions with the full text
international commitment, in so far as the Framework                           of its proposed decision, containing details of the
Agreement derogates from a Council regulation.                                 individual fines .
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 4 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 101 /21
 II. 1 . The applicant contests the Commission's factual              Action brought on 1 March 1995 by Viriato Monteiro
           and legal conclusions regarding its participation          da Silva against the Commission of the European
           in the alleged 'Cembureau agreement'. Those                                         Communities
          conclusions were based on insufficient evidence .
                                                                                             (Case T-74/95 )
           According to the principles governing the liability
                                                                                              ( 95/C 101 /41 )
           of legal persons, the conduct complained of by the
           Commission      cannot    be    attributed   to   the
                                                                                     (Language of tbe case: French)
           applicant.
      2. The applicant contests the Commission's factual              An action against the Commission of the European
           and legal conclusions regarding an exchange                Communities was brought before the Court of First
           of information in relation to prices. The                  Instance of the European Communities on 1 March 1995 by
           dissemination of the average prices published by           Viriato Monteiro da Silva, residing in Brussels, represented
           the Federal Statistical Office, details of which are       by Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels
           freely available to the public at large, cannot            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
           constitute a restriction of competition. The               of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
           objections regarding the exchange of price
           information in the course of meetings are based on         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           insufficient evidence .
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Commission of 6 April 1994
      3 . The applicant contests the objection regarding                  fixing Brussels as the applicant's place of recruitment,
           participation in alleged 'agreements on the                    and
           participation of the market' between France and
           Germany. Those objections, which relate to alleged         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           agreements concerning the partition of the market
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           in Saarland and the general regulation of cement
           supplies between France and Germany, are not               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
           substantiated by the evidence adduced . Similarly,         relied on in Case T-33/95 .
           the objections regarding the exchange of statistical
           data between the SFIC and the applicant are based
           on erroneous assumptions of fact.
      4. The applicant did not participate in the alleged                   Removal from the register of Case T-503/93 ( l )
           activities of which the Commission complains
           regarding the Greek cement industry and/or the                                     ( 95/C 101 /42
           protection of the Italian market.
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
III. The applicant objects that the imposition of a fine is
      inadmissible, since no intentional or negligent act on          By order of 7 March 1995 the President of the Second
      the part of any representative or employee appointed            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      by law or in accordance with its statutes, or any other         Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      person authorized by it, can be attributed to the               T-503/93 : Alain-Pierre Alio v. Commission of the European
      applicant.                                                      Communities .
                                                                      (M OJ No C 272, 8 . 10 . 1993 .