CELEX: C2001/331/35
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2001 in Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility)

24.11.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 331/21
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                           INSTANCE
                    of 10 September 2001
                                                                          The applicant is a French tyre manufacturer charged, in the
in Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl v Commission of the                      contested decision, with imposing on its dealers general price
                   European Communities                                   conditions and other commercial practices that have been the
                                                                          subject of a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC
        (Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility)                    Treaty.
                        (2001/C 331/35)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                         The Commission challenges, first, the system of discounts,
                                                                          including quantitative rebates which, according to the Com-
                                                                          mission, constitute an abuse. The applicant claims that the
In Case T-180/01 R: Euroagri Srl, established in Monte Vidon              contested decision misinterprets Article 82 EC. The Com-
Combatte (Italy), represented by W. Massucci, avocat, against             mission wrongly tries to claim that an undertaking in a
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Visag-                  dominant position may not take advantage of a system of
gio) — application for suspension of the operation of Com-                discounts, and the system of rebates for quantity is not, in
mission Decision C(2001) 1274 of 6 June 2001 cancelling the               practice, a ‘loyalty inducing’ abuse as the Commission claims.
aid granted to the company Euroagri under Commission                      Further the system does not have a partitioning effect, nor is it
Decision C(92) 3124 of 3 December 1992 in the context of                  unfair.
project No 92.IT.06.069 — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 10 September 2001, in which
he:
                                                                          Second, by the contested decision the Commission complains
1.   Dismissed the application for interim relief;                        that the applicant has introduced premiums, including a
                                                                          ‘service premium’ which, according to the Commission, is
2.   Ordered that the costs be reserved.                                  unfair. The applicant claims that the decision whether a
                                                                          condition is ‘unfair’ or not must be based on objective factors,
                                                                          and not on a mere subjective assessment by the Commission,
                                                                          and that the Commission has not shown that the rules
                                                                          implementing the service premium are unfair. The applicant
                                                                          further denies the allegedly ‘loyalty inducing’ nature of that
                                                                          premium. The fact that an undertaking obtains market infor-
Action brought on 4 September 2001 by Manufacture                         mation from its dealers cannot be regarded as an abuse, but as
Française des Pneumatiques Michelin against the Com-                      falling strictly within the bounds of normal competition.
           mission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-203/01)
                        (2001/C 331/36)                                   Third, the Commission considers that the conditions imposed
                                                                          on the dealers who are members of the ‘Friends of Michelin
                                                                          Club’ by the ‘Commercial Cooperation Agreement’ constitute
                  (Language of the case: French)                          an abuse. The applicant states that the purpose of the Club
                                                                          was to improve professional standards amongst dealers, and
                                                                          that the agreement is not in any way exclusive. The applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 denies that the member dealers are under a duty to achieve a
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                certain percentage of their turnover with sales of Michelin
European Communities on 4 September 2001 by Manufacture                   products, and claims that the Commission has infringed the
Française des Pneumatiques Michelin, established in Clermont-             rules on the taking of evidence. The applicant claims that the
Ferrand (France), represented by Jean-François Bellis, Markus             accusations of the Commission as regards the other obligations
Wellinger, Denis Waelbroeck and Mats Johnsson, avocats.                   of the members of the Club are based on systematic prejudice
                                                                          against the applicant, a subjective and flawed interpretation of
                                                                          the facts, and on ignorance of economic reality.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the Commission Decision of 20 June 2001 in
     Case COM/E-2/36.041 — PO — Michelin relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC,                                Further the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to
                                                                          carry out a detailed analysis of the effects of the practices in
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                               issue.