CELEX: C2000/149/71
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-58/00: Action brought on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen against the Commission of the European Communities

27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/37
— infringes Article 101a of the Staff Regulations, as well as           Action brought on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
    the principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen against the Commission of
    the principle of the hierarchy of rules;                                              the European Communities
— breaches the principle of protection of legitimate expec-                                      (Case T-58/00)
    tations; and
                                                                                                (2000/C 149/71)
— is vitiated by misuse of powers and failure to comply with
    proper procedure.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
                                                                        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen, a non-profit-making associ-
Action brought on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompani-                    ation under Belgian law, established in Brussels, and two other
et and Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB against the                       applicants, represented by J. van Hoof, of the Brussels Bar,
Council of the European Union and the Commission of                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                 the European Communities                               F. Brouxel.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                         (Case T-57/00)
                                                                        — annul Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December
                        (2000/C 149/70)                                      1999 in so far as, whether or not in conjunction with the
                                                                             White Paper, infringements are to have no retroactive
                                                                             effect and/or Article 4 failed to include abuses attributable
                  (Language of the case: English)                            to economic dependence;
                                                                        — in the alternative: set aside the consultation procedure and
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                             order that this be repeated in a transparent manner, and
Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                             that a statement of position be requested in regard to the
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             abolition of the retroactive effects of automatic nullity
on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompaniet, Stockholm and
                                                                             provided for in Article 81(2) EC, and the consequences of
Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, Arsta (Sweden) represented
                                                                             the modernisation programme for the situation of small
by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
                                                                             and medium-sized undertakings and consumers, as well as
                                                                             economic dependence in general and economic depen-
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  dence by virtue of cumulative effect in particular;
— require the Commission and the Council, pursuant to                   — order the Commission to pay costs.
    Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 235
    EC and 288 EC), to pay the applicants damages in respect
    of the loss suffered by them by reason of the unlawful              Pleas in law and main arguments
    adoption of Council Decision 94/800 and Commission
    Regulation (EC) No 478/95.                                          The Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen is an associ-
                                                                        ation which safeguards the interests of the regional associations
                                                                        of garage owners and their members.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        This application seeks the annulment of Commission Regu-
The applicants are part of the Saba Group of companies and              lation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the
are engaged in the purchase, import and sale of bananas in              application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of
Scandinavia. They were entitled to Category A banana import             vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336,
licences and imported bananas from Colombia and Costa Rica.             p. 21).
Their application concerns the damage suffered by them as a
result of having to purchase export licences in the period 1995
                                                                        This regulation forms part of a European Commission pro-
to 1998 in order to enable them to exercise their rights to             gramme for the modernisation of the application of the
obtain import licences.
                                                                        Community rules on competition. Within the context of this
                                                                        programme, the applicants also refer to the Green Paper on
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants            vertical restraints on competition (COM(96) 721 def.), the
are similar to those put forward in Case T-56/00.                       White Paper on modernisation of the competition rules (OJ
                                                                        1999 C 132), Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 amending
                                                                        Regulation No 17 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 5), and the Guidelines
                                                                        on Vertical Restraints (OJ 1999 C 270, p. 12).
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/38               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
The applicants submit that, in the consultation procedure, the             — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Commission failed to take any account of the comments
on the abovementioned publications made by the sectors
concerned.                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea in law: lack of competence/ ultra vires/ breach by the          The present proceedings are directed against the final decision
Commission of essential procedural requirements:                           contained in the letter of 22 December 1999, reference
                                                                           D17587, in which the Commission rejected complaint
                                                                           No IV/37332 Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa v Italian
With regard to vertical agreements, Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of              Republic, Autorità Portuale del Porto di Genova and Compag-
the contested regulation introduce ‘a posteriori control’. This            nia Unica Lavoratori Merci Varie (C.U.L.M.V.), relating to an
control has consequences solely for the future. In addition,               infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty in conjunction
abuses attributable to economic dependence are not taken into              with Article 82 thereof, deriving from an alleged abuse by
consideration.                                                             C.U.L.M.V. of its dominant position, resulting from its de facto
                                                                           monopoly in the Port of Genoa as regards the conduct of port
The abolition of the automatic nullity of agreements prohibited            operations and the supply of port labour.
under Article 81 EC constitutes an infringement of the Treaty.
The new rules create conditions under which the entire free                In support of its claim, the applicant alleges, first, a failure to
market can, with impunity, be restricted to approved dealers               undertake investigative measures, in so far as the defendant
and supplies to non-approved dealers can be excluded.                      did not commence proceedings under Council Regulation
                                                                           No 17/62 either against C.U.L.M.V. or against the Genoa Port
                                                                           Authority. The applicant alleges in that regard that the
Second plea in law: the consultations which preceded the                   contested practices derive:
adoption of the regulation were not conducted in a manner
consistent with the spirit of the Treaty:                                  — From the conduct of C.U.L.M.V. which, carrying on
                                                                               business simultaneously as a terminal operator and an
The new rules have been presented by the Commission as                         undertaking supplying labour, hampers access to those
constituting no more than a modernisation of procedures,                       markets by competitors. The Port Authority is aware of
whereas the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty has been                  this situation.
ignored. The scope of the modernisation programme has,
moreover, been considered only from the point of view of                   — From administrative measures and/or failure to act by the
facilitating the tasks of the European Commission.                             Port Authority, which the applicant criticises as being
                                                                               contrary to the Community competition rules.
                                                                           The applicant also alleges breach of the principle audi alterem
                                                                           partem and submits that the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                           contested decision is contradictory.
Action brought on 17 March 2000 by Compagnia Portuale
Pietro Chiesa v Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties
                                                                           Action brought on 16 March 2000 by Continental and
                          (Case T-59/00)                                   Overseas Investments NV against the Commission of the
                                                                                                European Communities
                         (2000/C 149/72)
                                                                                                     (Case T-64/00)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2000/C 149/73)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 March
2000 by Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa, represented by
Giuseppe Michele Giacomini and Barbara Della Barile, of the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Genoa Bar.                                                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 16 March 2000 by Continental
                                                                           and Overseas Investments NV (formerly ‘Jubertrade NV’),
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              established in Antwerp, represented by Y. Van Gerven and J.
                                                                           Bernaerts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— Annul the letter of 22 December 1999, reference D17587,                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, of the Luxembourg
     of the European Commission, Competition DG;                           Bar, 11 Rue Goethe.