CELEX: C1997/166/44
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-31 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Patrick Rousseaux against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-82/97)

31 . 5 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 166/21
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The corresponding request for payment in full was made
                                                                       by letter of 31 March 1995 from the Assessore Regionale
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      all'Agricoltura, which was never answered by the
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    Commission. Consequently, in November 1996, since the
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31           applicant region had not received the payment requested,
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   it sent a request for payment to the Commission , which
                                                                       stated in response that, as the request for payment in full
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   in respect of the project in question should have reached it
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                     by 31 March 1995 , whereas it had only arrived four days
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    later, the Community assistance had to be withdrawn
                                                                       pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            88 (').
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims in the first place that Article 10 of
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 has been infringed in so far
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 as that provision does not provide that requests for
Case T- 16/97 ( M.                                                     payment must be received by the Commission by
                                                                       31 March, but only that they must have been 'the subject
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                     of a request for final payment by 31 March 1995 '.
                                                                       Consequently, the letter from the Region of Tuscany
                                                                       correctly complies with the provision of the Regulation in
                                                                       question, which lays down the deadline for sending the
                                                                       request and not for its receipt.
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Region of Tuscany                The application also claims that there has been a failure to
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   comply with the principle of proportionality. In the
                          (Case T-81/97)                               applicant's view, even it is accepted that the region did not
                           ( 97/C 166/43 )                             correctly comply with the provision — which it denies —,
                                                                       the economic burden is excessive by comparison with the
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      aim pursued, that is to say, the automatic sanction of
                                                                       forfeiture of the security laid down for a markedly less
An action against the Commission of the European                       serious infringement than failure to fulfil the principal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      obligation which the security itself is intended to
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1997                   guarantee .
by the Region of Tuscany, Florence, represented by Vito
Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an                    Lastly, the applicant claims that there has been a further
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   infringement of Community law in the shape of a breach
Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de Vianden.                                      of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations . It
                                                                       points in this connection to the complete lack of reaction
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           on the part of the Commission between May 1995 and
                                                                       November 1996 . That lack of reaction created a legitimate
— annul memorandum VI/040551 of the European                           expectation in the region that it would receive the funding
     Commission — Directorate General for Agriculture —                already earmarked for the works in question, given that it
     of 21 November 1994,                                              had been established that the works had been properly
                                                                       completed .
— annul the act — never notified to the applicant region
     — by which the European Commission withdrew the                   (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     Community assistance earmarked under the Integrated                   laying down provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
     Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for project No                          No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section ( OJ No
     88.20 .IT.006.0 (works for the supply of potable water                L 374 , 1988 , p. 25 ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                           No 2085/93 of 20 July 1993 ( OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p. 44 ).
     in Tuscany ),
— annul the European Commission 's memorandum of
     31 January 1997, received by the applicant on
     7 February 1997, by which the Commission informed
     it that the assistance had been withdrawn .
                                                                       Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Patrick Rousseaux
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                ( Case T-82/97)
In this case the Region of Tuscany challenges the                                                 ( 97/C 166/44 )
defendant's act withdrawing the financial assistance
earmarked         under      the   Integrated    Mediterranean                        (Language of the case: French)
Programme ( IMP ) for a project for the supply of potable
water in Tuscany amounting in total to approximately                   An action against the Commission of the European
ECU 900 000 .                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997                  works contract was awarded for the supply of monobloc
by Patrick Rousseaux, residing in Brussels, represented by             concrete sleepers on the basis of a qualification procedure
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for               devised by the SNCB . One of the grounds of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson               applicant's complaint is the fact that the rejection of its
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                             tender, for failure to meet technical requirements, was
                                                                       based on the misconception that the monobloc sleepers
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decided on by the SNCB and the duo-bloc sleepers offered
                                                                       by the applicant are not perfectly substitutable . According
                                                                       to the applicant company, the contested decision closing
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      the file endorsed that incorrect technical assessment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    The Commission based its decision not to proceed on the
                                                                       lack of any Community interest in bringing an action
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   against the Belgian State for failure to fulfil its obligations .
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    In support of its contentions, the applicant alleges a
                                                                       breach of essential procedural requirements, in that, first,
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           the Commission did not hear its views at any stage and,
                                                                       second, it did not specify the legislative basis for its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    decision not to proceed with an investigation. Specifically,
                                                                       in giving a decision on the contract in question, the
                                                                       Commission cannot rely in abstracto on Community law
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 relating to public works contracts without taking account
Case T-16/97 C ).                                                      of the rules governing competition . In that regard, the
                                                                       contested decision should be declared unlawful under
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  Article 86 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 90 (2 )
                                                                       thereof. The applicant stresses that the SNCB enjoys a
                                                                       monopoly for operation of the Belgian railway system,
                                                                       that it has been granted authority for type-approval of the
                                                                       equipment used in its network and that the technical
                                                                       specifications at issue in these proceedings are
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by Société Anonyme de                   unfavourable only to imported products .
Traverses en Béton Armé ( Sateba) against Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                       Finally, the applicant alleges an incorrect assessment of the
                          ( Case T-83/97)                              facts and a misuse of powers . It states in that connection
                            ( 97/C 166/45 )                            that, in the field of competition, where circumstances
                                                                       constituting an infringement exist, the Commission may
                 (Language of the case: French)                        impose a sanction of an economic nature on the
                                                                       undertakings concerned. In its view, it was only in order
An action against the Commission of the European                       to evade the application of Community law in this area
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      that the Commission adopted a decision not to proceed in
Instance on 1 April 1997 by Societe Anonyme de Traverses               respect of acts imputable to the SNCB, at the same time
en Beton Arme ( Sateba ), whose registered office is in                concluding that there was no Community interest in
Paris, represented by Jacques Manseau, of the Paris Bar,               taking proceedings against the Belgian State. However, by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       referring to the Belgian State rather than to the SNCB, the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                    defendant is endeavouring to make its decision
                                                                        unchallengeable by virtue of the settled case-law
                                                                        concerning the application of Article 169 of the Treaty.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
 should :
— annul Commission Decision of 20 January 1997,
     Reference No XV/B3/MM/(96 ) D/2312,
                                                                        Action brought on 3 April 1997 by Horeca-Wallonie
 — order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                               ( Case T-85/97)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                 97/C 166/46 )
 The applicant, a French company operating in the railway                              (Language of the case: French)
 infrastructure sector, contests the Commission decision
 closing the file on the complaint it lodged against Societe
 Nationale des Chemins de Fer Beiges ( SNCB ). That                     An action against the Commission of the European
 complaint concerned the conditions under which a public                Communities was brought before the Court of First