CELEX: C2000/135/42
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-52/00: Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Coe Clerici Logistics SpA v Commission of the European Communities

13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/23
The applicant seeks the annulment, in whole or in part, of this         Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Coe Clerici Logistics
decision in particular on the following grounds:                             SpA v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                 (Case T-52/00)
— As regards Article 2 of the decision, the supply contracts
    concluded by British Steel with Vallourec, Dalmine and
    MRW were not the result of an unlawful agreement or                                         (2000/C 135/42)
    collusion contrary to Article 81(1) and can be explained
    by the relevant commercial context in which they were
    concluded.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— As regards Article 1, there is insufficient evidence to               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 9 March
    uphold a finding of infringement against British Steel from         2000 by Coe Clerici Logistics SpA, represented by Giuseppe
    (and including) 1991.                                               Michele Giacomini and Elisabetta Minozzi, of the Genoa Bar.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
— In any event, given the relevant commercial context, the
    gravity and extent of any participation by British Steel in
    the infringement would have been only minor such that a             — Annul the letter of 20 December 1999, reference D17482,
    significantly reduced fine would have been appropriate. If               of the European Commission, Competition DG;
    the infringement is upheld, the fine imposed in respect of
    it should therefore be significantly reduced.
                                                                        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
— The Commission has based the duration of the Article 1
    infringement on an important factual error. The quota               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    arrangement implemented by the Japanese producers was
    authorised by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade
    and Industry until 1991, and not 1990 as stated in                  The applicant in this case takes exception to the defendant’s
    the decision. Accordingly, by its own reasoning, the                rejection of its complaint concerning the fact that on 30 March
    Commission should not have made a finding of infringe-              1999 the Port Authority of the Port of Ancona and Ancona
    ment before 1991. If the infringement is upheld, the fine           Merei S.C.p.A. prevented it from unloading coal, using its own
    imposed in respect of it should be reduced to reflect a             facilities, at quay No 25 in the port. That quay was the only
    shorter duration.                                                   one which the applicant could use since it was the only one
                                                                        equipped with a crane capable of unloading the goods. That
                                                                        refusal, in its view, constitutes an infringement of Article 86
                                                                        EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC.
— The Commission failed to satisfy the legal requirement to
    indicate in the Statement of Objections the essential factors
    defined in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17, and thereby              In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
    infringed British Steel’s rights of defence. The fine should        rights of the defence and of the principle of legal certainty, as
    therefore be annulled.                                              regards that part of the letter relating to the applicability of
                                                                        Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 December
                                                                        1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under
                                                                        Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (1). It is alleged in that
— The Commission entirely failed to take into account British           connection, in particular, that Ancona Merci, the concession-
    Steel’s co-operation with the Commission, and thereby               aire for the quay at which it was sought to undertake unloading
    infringed British Steel’s legitimate expectations and also          operations, is an undertaking with exclusive rights which
    the principle of equal treatment. The fine should therefore         abused its dominant position in deciding whether or not a
    be reduced.                                                         third party should be allowed, using its own resources, to
                                                                        unload goods at the quay and it is the applicant’s sole or main
                                                                        competitor in the market for that activity.
                                                                        Also, the contested letter constitutes a final decision to shelve
                                                                        a complaint within the meaning of Council Regulation No 17,
                                                                        adopted in breach of the procedure laid down in Articles 6, 7
                                                                        and 8 of Regulation No 2842/98.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
The applicant also submits that the statement of reasons is              In support of her claims, she pleads:
defective and that no investigation was carried out, in so far as
the contested letter bases its statement that there was no abuse         — infringement of the general principle of equal treatment,
of a dominant position by Ancona Merci on the fact that quay                 and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and of Annex III
No 25 does not form part of an essential infrastructure within               thereto, in so far as, in the competition in question, there
the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice.                         was a second series of written tests for five new candidates.
                                                                             In addition, that competition was open to all members of
                                                                             temporary staff, whether remunerated from the appropri-
(1) OJ L 354 of 30.12.1998, p. 12.                                           ation for ‘research’ or from the appropriation for ‘adminis-
                                                                             tration’. A procedure in respect of appointment as estab-
                                                                             lished officials cannot be organised in the same way for
                                                                             staff under different budgetary terms.
                                                                         — infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex
                                                                             III to the Staff Regulations and of the principles of having
                                                                             regard for the welfare of officials and of sound management
                                                                             and fair administration, and disregard for the interest of
Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli                             the service. The applicant claims, on that point, that
  against the Commission of the European Communities                         the competition jury selected a number of successful
                                                                             candidates which was lower than the number of posts
                                                                             available and that, in the present case, the jury did not
                         (Case T-53/00)                                      comply with the objective pursued by a recruitment
                                                                             procedure in respect of appointment as established
                        (2000/C 135/43)                                      officials: the appointment as established officials of persons
                                                                             such as to enable the institution to carry out its tasks.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant also cites the breach of the obligation to state
                                                                         reasons and the existence of a manifest error of assessment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli,
residing at Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the jury for the internal competition            Action brought on 11 March 2000 by Federación de
    concerning the appointment as established officials of               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, Federación de
    members of the temporary staff in category COM/TA/2/98               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación de Cofrad-
    not to include the applicant on the list of suitable                 ias de Peseadores de Cantabria and Others v Council of
    candidates;                                                                                the European Union
— annul all the other subsequent acts adopted by the                                              (Case T-54/00)
    abovementioned competition jury and by the appointing
    authority;
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/44)
— in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the
    appointing authority to reject the applicant’s complaint, a
    decision of 1 December 1999, notified on 7 December
    1999;                                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 11 March 2000
                                                                         by Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipuzcoa,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación
                                                                         de Cofradias de Pescadores de Cantabria and Others, which are
                                                                         registered in San Sebastifin, Bilbao and Santander, respectively,
The applicant contests her exclusion from the list of suitable           represented by Ramón Garcia-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
candidates drawn up following her participation in the tests             Domingues Pérez, of the Madrid and La Coruña Bars, respect-
for Competition COM/TA/99.                                               ively, with offices at 19 Square de Meeûs, Brussels.