CELEX: C2001/186/13
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-51/01: Action brought on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia against the Commission of the European Communities

C 186/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.6.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 28 February 2001 by François Vainker                   Under Articles 236 and 288 EC the first applicant claims
   and Brenda Vainker against the European Parliament                    damages for the loss allegedly caused to him by the disease
                                                                         and damages for the pain and suffering caused to him by the
                          (Case T-48/01)                                 defendant’s alleged mishandling of his request.
                         (2001/C 186/12)                                 The second applicant seeks damages for the pain and suffering
                                                                         which she claims to have suffered by the defendant’s alleged
                                                                         mishandling of her husband’s request.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 February 2001 by François Vainker and Brenda Vainker,
represented by John Grayston and André Bywater of Eversheds,
Brussels (Belgium).
The first applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay certain amounts in compen-
      sation to the first applicant;
                                                                                                  (Case T-51/01)
—     interest of 8 % on the amount eventually awarded under
      the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European                                    (2001/C 186/13)
      Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
      pational disease; and
—     any other award of interest payment which the Court                                   (Language of the case: French)
      thinks just and appropriate; and
—     either an annuity to the first applicant from the age of 62        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      to compensate him for loss of pension rights, or, such             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      capital sum as the Court may fix ex aequo et bono.                 European Communities on 5 March 2001 by Joachim Fronia,
                                                                         residing in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
The second applicant claims that the Court should:                       and Véronique Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
—     order the defendant to pay certain amounts to the second
      applicant for the pain and suffering caused her by the
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      defendant’s conduct during the procedure concerning the
      application by the first applicant for recognition that the        —     annul the decisions not to retain him as acting Head of
      first applicant is suffering from an occupational disease                Unit during a period of restructuring and rejecting his
      and the request for compensation arising thereby, and for                application for the posts of Head of Unit of Units DG
      compensation under the said for non-reimbursed medical                   EAC/A/4, DG EAC/C/2 and DG EAC/C/5 and to reappoint
      expenses.                                                                him ad personam adviser in the Education and Culture
                                                                               Directorate-General;
The joint applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the joint applicants’ costs in
      their entirety, including this action before the Court.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant was Head of Unit at Directorate-General XXI-
The first applicant, a former official of the defendant, contrac-        I/A/4 ‘Promotion of linguistic ability, open and distance
ted an illness that later caused him to be placed on permanent           learning in education, adult education’. On 24 September
invalidity. He considers that this illness is an occupational            1999, the Commission decided to create a new ‘Education,
disease, contracted as a direct result of the institution’s failure      Audiovisual and Culture’ Directorate-General regrouping the
to put in place and/or maintain a safe system of work, and for           services of the former DG X (partially) and the former DG XXII
which he has requested recognition by the defendant as                   and reducing the number of Units from 39 to 28. The
well as compensation in respect thereof. According to the                applicant’s former Unit was divided into three new Units. The
applicants, this request was later granted, although the defend-         Commission decided to reject the applicant’s application for
ant has yet to complete the procedure in respect of the                  each of the three posts of Head of Unit and to reappoint him
compensation due.                                                        as ad personam adviser in the new Directorate-General.
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/9
The applicant challenges those decisions, alleging:                      In February 1996, a French company, Central Parts SA, lodged
                                                                         a complaint with the Commission against the applicant,
—     infringement of Articles 4, 5, 7, 25 and 29 of the Staff           according to which the applicant had taken steps to prevent
      Regulations,                                                       Central Parts SA from obtaining supplies for resale of JCB
                                                                         equipment from the applicant’s authorised distributors in the
—     breach of the principle of correspondence between grade
                                                                         United Kingdom.
      and post,
—     breach of the principle of entitlement to reasonable career
      prospects,
                                                                         According to the applicant, it had indeed taken such steps and
—     failure to have regard to the interests of the service,            had done so pursuant to express terms of its standard
                                                                         distributor agreement with its authorised distributors in the
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment,                        United Kingdom, this agreement having been notified, dis-
                                                                         cussed with and approved by the Commission in the 1970s.
—     breach of the duty to provide a proper statement of
      reasons, and
—     breach of the principle of sound management and proper             By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
      administration.                                                    applicant had infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by entering into
                                                                         agreements or concerted practices with authorised distributors,
                                                                         the object of which was to restrict competition.
                                                                         The applicant contends that the process leading up to the
                                                                         contested decision breached its fundamental rights of defence
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service against                   and its rights under Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the European
       the Commission of the European Communities                        Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the applicant
                                                                         alleges that the Commission has failed to act within a
                                                                         reasonable time, has failed to behave impartially and to apply
                          (Case T-67/01)                                 the presumption of innocence and has denied the applicant
                                                                         access to documents on its file to which access should have
                         (2001/C 186/14)                                 been given.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
                                                                         fallen well short of establishing the alleged infringements to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                the requisite legal standard.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service,
Staffordshire (UK) represented by Richard Fowler QC, Rupert
Anderson, Barrister, Laura Carstensen and Marc Israel of                 The applicant also contends that it is plain from the case-law
Slaughter and May, London (UK).                                          on exclusive and selective distribution networks that the
                                                                         applicant’s distribution agreement, as notified to the Com-
                                                                         mission and subject to notified amendments, are eligible for
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         individual exemption, and the contested decision contains no
—     declare the Commission’s Decision C(2000) 3887 of                  reasoned grounds upon which these agreements should be
      21 December 2000 in Case COMP.F.1/35/918 — JCB                     denied exemption under Article 81(3).
      void and annul it in its entirety;
—     in the alternative, annul those parts of the Decision to the
      extent that the Court considers just and appropriate in            Finally, the applicant disputes the imposition of any fine. It
      the circumstances and to reduce the fine imposed on JCB            maintains that most if not all of the conduct wrongly
      accordingly;                                                       characterised by the Commission as infringing Article 81 is
                                                                         legitimate conduct referable to and within the scope of
—     order that all the costs of the application for annulment          the agreements notified to the Commission and that the
      should be paid by the Commission.                                  Commission is accordingly prevented by Article 15(5)(a) of
                                                                         Regulation No 17 from imposing any fine in respect of such
                                                                         conduct. In any event, the fine imposed is disproportionate.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant manufactures and supplies machinery and
associated parts for earthmoving, excavation, materials hand-
ling and agricultural purposes.