CELEX: 62000TN0366
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-366/00: Action brought on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 61/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
                                                                         Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                                         (Case T-364/00)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 61/32)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Luigia Dricot                      Weyenbergh, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
                         (Case T-363/00)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
                          (2001/C 61/31)                                       board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
                                                                               the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
                                                                               decision of the appointing authority dated 9 October
                                                                               2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
                   (Language of the case: French)                              ted by the applicant;
                                                                         —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the sum of BEF 2 941 667, subject to alteration during
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Luigia                             for material and non-material damage;
Dricot, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-            The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                     forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 500 000, subject to alteration during the
      course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for              Action brought on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.
      material and non-material damage;                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-366/00)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2001/C 61/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
forward in Case T-357/00 Martı́nez Alarcón v Commission.                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A.,
                                                                         a company registered in France, represented by Jeremy Lever
                                                                         QC and George Peretz, Barristers and Robin Griffith, Solicitor
                                                                         of Clifford Chance, London.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     That the contested decision violates the principle of the
                                                                               legitimate expectation, inasmuch as for many years prior
                                                                               to 1997, the Commission would have known about the
—     annul the contested decision, alternatively Article 2                    existence and contents of French Law pursuant to which
      thereof; and                                                             the aid in question has been granted.
                                                                         —     That the Commission committed manifest error of calcu-
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   lation.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 83, of 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The current application arises out of the Commission Decision
of 12 July 2000 (C(2000)2183) addressed to the French
Republic concerning two aids said to have been granted to the
applicant by the French Public Authorities. The two aids in
question consist of:                                                     Action brought on 30 November 2000 by General Motors
                                                                         Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V. against the
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
—     That the local authorities arranged for the transfer to the
      applicant of a certain and, namely 49 hectares of                                          (Case T-368/00)
      68 hectares site in the industrial zone of La Saussaye, and
      a factory on that site at a preferential price.
                                                                                                  (2001/C 61/34)
—     That the applicant benefited from a preferential tariff
      in respect of effluent treatment charges (redevances                                  (Language of the case: English)
      d’assainissement) levied by the City of Orléans.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of their conclusions, the applicant submits:                  European Communities on 30 November 2000 by General
                                                                         Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V., companies
                                                                         registered in the Netherlands, represented by Dirk Vander-
—     That insofar as Article 2 of the contested decision orders         meersch, Robbert Snelders and Steven Allcock of Cleary,
      the French Republic to recover the aid in question, it             Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Brussels.
      infringes Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No
      659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules
      for the application of Article 93 [now 88] of the EEC              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Treaty (1), which provides for a 10 year limitation period
      in respect of the Commission’s power to recover aid.               —     annul Commission Decision No. C(2000) 2707 of
                                                                               20 September 2000 (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel),
                                                                               addressed to General Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel
—     That the administrative procedure infringed essential                    Nederland B.V.; alternatively
      procedural requirements and the applicant’s rights of
      defence and that the recovery order requires the French
                                                                         —     to cancel or reduce the fine imposed;
      Republic to act in breach of the European Convention of
      Human Rights. In this connection, Scott relies in particu-
      lar on the fact that there was never any fair trial of the         —     to order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
      issues on which its liability to ‘repay’ the alleged aid was
      determined, let alone any fair trial in which the applicant
      could participate and in which the rights of defence were          Pleas in law and main arguments
      respected. On the contrary, the Commission treated the
      administrative procedure as being essentially a procedure
      between itself and the French Republic.                            The contested decision imposes a fine of 43 million euros on
                                                                         the applicants for an alleged infringement of Article 81(1) EC.
                                                                         The Commission concludes that Opel Nederland B.V. entered
—     That the contested decision results in unequal treatment           into agreements with Opel dealers in the Netherlands aimed at
      of equal situations, in relation to cases that in pari materia     restricting or prohibiting export sales of Opel vehicles to end-
      with that of Scott.                                                users and Opel dealers located in other Member States.