CELEX: C2000/149/65
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-6/00: Action brought on 17 January 2000 by Technische Unie BV 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.