CELEX: C1999/048/62
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Tate & Lyle plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-202/98)

20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/29
As regards, specifically, the alleged infringements of              1998 by Tate & Lyle plc, represented by R. Fowler QC
Community law which will continue notwithstanding the               and A. L. Morris, with an address for service in
draft Royal Decree at issue in these proceedings, the               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
applicants mention the following:                                   Rue Goethe.
Ð the scope is limited to officials who were engaged after
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1985, resulting in discrimination against
    those Spanish officials who began their service before
    Spain's accession;
                                                                    Ð annul Article 3 of Commission Decision of 14 October
                                                                        1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85
Ð Breach of the obligation attaching to the legislating                 (Case No IV/F-3/33.708 Ð British Sugar plc, Case No
    State by virtue of its responsibility for infringement of           IV/F-3/33.709 Ð Tate & Lyle plc, Case No
    Community law to redress the damage caused, since,                  IV/F-3/33.710 Ð Napier Brown & Company Ltd,
    in the formula laid down for calculating the actuarial              Case No IV/F-3/33.711 Ð James Budgett Sugars Ltd)
    equivalent, the retirement pension which would accrue               in so far as it concerns Tate & Lyle, and
    as at the date of joining the EC is updated to the date
    of calculation by reference to the Consumer Price
    Index prevailing in Spain during those years. In the
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
    applicants' opinion, in order to redress the damage
    caused to officials and to conform with its domestic
    legislation, the Administration should, at least, place
    them in the same situation as Spanish pensioners,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    applying to them the same enhancements as the latter
    have enjoyed over the last twelve years.
                                                                    By Article 1 of the contested Decision, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc, Tate & Lyle plc, Napier
Ð Partial breach of the obligation contained in
                                                                    Brown & Company Ltd and James Budgett Sugars Ltd
    Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations
                                                                    (the Parties') had infringed Article 85(1) by participating
    through failure to make provision for the transfer of
                                                                    in an agreement and/or concerted practice the object of
    the pension rights of officials who have been
                                                                    which was to restrict competition by the coordination of
    self-employed.
                                                                    the parties' pricing policy on the market for industrial
                                                                    sugar in Great Britain. By Article 2, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc and Tate & Lyle had
Ð The Draft Royal Decree makes no reference
                                                                    infringed Article 85(1) by participating in an agreement
    whatsoever to the transfer of rights accrued during
                                                                    and/or concerted practice the object of which was to
    secondment or unpaid leave, nor does it deal with
                                                                    restrict competition by the coordination of the parties'
    transfers from the Community social security system
                                                                    pricing policy on the market for retail sugar in Great
    to a national scheme, contrary to the requirements of
                                                                    Britain. By Article 3, the Commission imposed a fine of
    Article 11(1) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff
                                                                    ECU 39,6 million on British Sugar plc, ECU 7 million on
    Regulations.
                                                                    Tate & Lyle, ECU 1,8 million on Napier Brown &
                                                                    Company Ltd, and ECU 1,8 million on James Budgett
Ð The Draft Royal Decree, finally, infringes Article 8 of           Sugars Ltd.
    Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as it
    includes certain particulars of an actuarial nature.
                                                                    The applicant submits that the fine of ECU 7 million
                                                                    imposed on it by Article 3 of the contested Decision
                                                                    should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                    Ð the Commission, in applying the Commission's
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Tate & Lyle plc                   Leniency Notice (1) by analogy, failed to apply it
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    correctly and imposed an excessive fine on the
                      (Case T-202/98)                                   applicant;
                       (1999/C 48/62)
                                                                    Ð contrary to the Commission's statement at
               (Language of the case: English)                          paragraph 217 of the contested Decision, the applicant
                                                                        did maintain continuous and complete cooperation
                                                                        with the Commission throughout the investigation,
An action against the Commission of the European                        and therefore fulfilled the substantive requirements of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       point (d) of Section B of the Leniency Notice, thereby
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                     meeting all the requirements of the said Section B;
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/30                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Ð the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the                  Ð in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4, of the
     fullness of its cooperation would be taken into                        Decision or reduce the fine; and
     account in the level of fine imposed;
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
Ð the Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC
     Treaty by failing to state adequate reasons for its view
     that the applicant did not maintain continuous and                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     complete       cooperation     with     the    Commission
     throughout the investigation; and
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission
                                                                       Decision of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding
Ð in the absence of adequate explicit reasoning, the                   pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1).
     implicit reasons for the Commission's view that the
     applicant did not maintain continuous and complete
     cooperation with the Commission throughout the                    The applicant challenges the contested decision on the
     investigation appears to be the alleged retraction by             following grounds:
     the applicant of statements made earlier in the
     proceeding. The applicant made no retractions of
     earlier statements; what the Commission apparently                Ð The Decision is based on an incorrect and incomplete
     regards as retractions' were in fact no more than                     assessment of the facts and vitiated by manifest error
     corrections or clarifications of the Commission's                      of law.
     interpretation of the facts; the applicant was entitled
     to make these clarifications, and could not thereby be
     considered not to be cooperating with the
     Commission.                                                       Ð By failing to address fully the submissions and
                                                                            evidence of British Sugar and of the other addressees
                                                                            of the Decision and by failing to adduce evidence
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of                 which supports its contentions regarding the
    fines in Cartel Cases (OJ C 207, 18.7.1996).                            application of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                            Commission has infringed essential procedural
                                                                            requirements.
                                                                       Ð The Decision fails to exhibit reasoning of the requisite
                                                                            standard under Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by British Sugar plc
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  (1) See also Cases T-202/98 Tate & Lyle v. Commission and
                                                                           T-207/98 Napier Brown & Company Ltd. v. Commission.
                         (Case T-204/98)
                          (1999/C 48/63)
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Napier Brown
                                                                       & Company Limited against the Commission of the
An action against the Commission of the European                                          European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December                                           (Case T-207/98)
1998 by British Sugar plc, represented by Thomas Sharpe
                                                                                               (1999/C 48/64)
QC, Daniel Jowell, Rae Lindsay and Alex Nourry, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
                                                                                      (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Ð annul in its entirety Commission Decision of                         1998 by Napier Brown & Company Limited, represented
     14 October 1998 in Case IV7F-3/33.708-British Sugar               by Diana Guy, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     plc relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt of Bonn & Schmitt, 7
     Treaty;                                                           Val St Croix.