CELEX: C2000/149/66
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-7/00: An action brought on 18 January 2000 by Hyper Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

C 149/34               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
Action brought on 17 January 2000 by Technische Unie                     non-discrimination to single out TU as being the only FEG
BV against the Commission of the European Communities                    member liable, and the Commission has failed to provide a
                                                                         sufficient statement of reasons as to why TU should be held
                           (Case T-6/00)                                 liable together with FEG. In addition, the Commission has
                                                                         erred as regards the facts and the law. There was no collective
                                                                         exclusive dealing, no horizontal pricing pressure and thus no
                         (2000/C 149/65)                                 connection between the two. Furthermore, the Commission
                                                                         has infringed the rights of the defence in various ways. First,
                                                                         the decision was adopted out of time. Second, it is based on
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        facts which were not mentioned in the statement of objections,
                                                                         and the Commission has acted contrary to the principle of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                presumption of innocence and the principle in dubio pro reo
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               flowing therefrom. Finally, the applicant claims that the fine
European Communities on 17 January 2000 by Technische                    imposed in unreasonable, or at any rate discriminatory and/or
Unie BV, established at Amstelveen, represented by P.V.F. Bos            lacking in a sufficient statement of reasons.
and M.A. Coumans, of the law firm Trenité van Doorne,
Rotterdam, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.2000.
Chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue
Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the action admissible;
— primarily, annul the Commission’s decision (document
                                                                         An action brought on 18 January 2000 by Hyper Srl
    number C(1999) 3439 final) of 26 October 1999 (1)
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
    concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
    Treaty in Case IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve
    Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Ge-                                          (Case T-7/00)
    bied and Technische Unie (FEG and TU);
                                                                                                  (2000/C 149/66)
— in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 5(2) of that decision;
— in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article
    5(2) of that decision;                                                                 (Language of the case: German)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 January 2000 by Hyper Srl,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                     Limena, Italy, represented by Dr Dietrich Ehle and Dr Dirk
                                                                         Ehle, of the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel
The applicant is the largest wholesale distributor of electrotech-
                                                                         Welter, Luxembourg.
nical fittings in the Netherlands and the largest member of
FEG, a sectorial association established to protect the common
interests of stockkeeping wholesalers of electrotechnical fit-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
tings. In response to a complaint submitted in 1991, the
Commission in 1999 adopted a decision in which it found                  — annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 1999
that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC by taking an               (REM 2/98),
active part in infringements committed by FEG. The latter had
infringed Article 81 EC by entering into a collective exclusive          — order the defendant to pay the costs.
dealing arrangement intended to prevent supplies to non-
members of FEG, on the basis of an agreement with the
Nederlandse Agentenvereniging op Elektrotechnisch Gebied
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(‘NAVEG’) and of practices concerted with suppliers not
represented in NAVEG. The Commission further found that
the FEG had infringed Article 81(1) EC by directly and                   The Commission found in the contested decision addressed to
indirectly restricting the freedom of its members to determine           the Republic of Italy that the remission of import duties owed
their selling prices independently. A fine of EUR 2.15 million           by the applicant in the amount of LIT 170 465 765 was not
was imposed on the applicant. TU seeks annulment of                      justified. Those duties were levied in connection with the
the decision on the following grounds. To begin with, the                import of colour televisions from Turkey from April 1992 to
Commission is wrong to regard TU as being (individually)                 December 1993 and were remitted ex post facto on the ground
liable. TUs membership of FEG is not enough to render it                 that preference form A.TR.1 had been wrongly completed in
individually liable. Moreover, it is contrary to the principle of        Turkey.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/35
The essence of the applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments            The contested regulation, it is claimed, entirely upset the
are similar to those in Cases T-186/97 (1), T-187/97, T-191/97,           existing situation. Its effect is to exclude from the scope of
T-192/97, T-210/97 and T-211/97.                                          code 2001 90 50 mushrooms preserved in vinegar which still
                                                                          have a salt content in excess of 2,5 % even if such salt is added
                                                                          only for the purposes of preparation and not preservation.
(1) OJ 1997 C 318, p. 17.                                                 Those products will henceforth be subjected to the severest
                                                                          tariff conditions laid down for code 2003 10 of the combined
                                                                          nomenclature.
                                                                          In support, the applicant claims:
                                                                          — The Commission lacks competence by virtue of Article 26
                                                                               of the EC Treaty;
Action brought on 8 March 2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto                  — Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, the legal basis of the
Masiello & Figli v Commission of the European Communi-                         contested regulation, has been infringed and misapplied,
                               ties                                            in that the powers of the Commission provided for therein,
                                                                               being of an executive nature, may not be used in order to
                                                                               amend provisions of a substantive nature which define the
                          (Case T-49/00)                                       tariff conditions for goods. Secondly, in this case the
                                                                               requirements for amending the pre-existing provisions are
                                                                               not satisfied;
                         (2000/C 149/67)
                                                                          — The principle of equal treatment has been infringed in that
                                                                               the new regulation is extremely onerous only for the
                                                                               producers and importers of mushrooms which are pre-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             served in vinegar but are prepared using a high salt content.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also considers that the contested regulation
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8 March            contains an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons
2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto Masiello & Figli, represented              and infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle
by Andrea Guarino and Alain Lorang, of the Rome and                       of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Luxembourg Bars respectively.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             (1) OJ L 321 of 14.12.1999, p. 3.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 170 of 28.6.1997, p. 13.
— Annul Commission Regulation No 2626/99;
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA against
                                                                                 the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant in this case, an importer of preserved vegetables
for human consumption, takes exception to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2626/99 amending Annex I to Council                                              (Case T-50/00)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1). One of
the main products in which it deals is cooked mushrooms of                                         (2000/C 149/68)
the ‘agaricus’ variety preserved in vinegar. Salt is then added to
them, in a concentration varying between 15 and 25 %.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
Under the combined nomenclature established by Regulation
No 2685/87, mushrooms of the ‘agaricus’ variety could be                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
classified under three headings. To resolve this problem,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997                     European Communities on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA,
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined            represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
nomenclature was adopted (2).                                             the Rome and Venice Bars.