CELEX: C2000/316/55
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-214/00: Action brought on 16 August 2000 by "X" against the Commission of the European Communities

C 316/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
The grounds and arguments alleged by the applicant against               —     The Commission’s findings that the Regulations 17 and
the refusal by the Council to grant (partial) access to the                    1017/68 apply to various of the charges and surcharges
requested documents are similar to those invoked in case                       to which the decision relates is vitiated by breach of
T-188/98 (1).                                                                  essential procedural requirements and substantive errors
                                                                               of law. Concretely, the defects in the Commission’s
                                                                               market definition and reasoning vitiate the decision and
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.99, p. 28.                                                   render it unlawful.
                                                                         —     The decision is vitiated by inadequate and contradictory
                                                                               reasoning in its application of Article 2 and 5 of Regu-
                                                                               lation 1017/68 and of Articles 81(1) and (3) EC to the
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount the charges and
                                                                               discharges which it finds to fall within the scope of,
                                                                               respectively, Regulation 1017/68 and Regulation 17.
Action brought on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM and
thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies against the                      —     There should be no basis for the application of Regu-
         Commission of the European Communities                                lation 17 and Regulation 1017/68 in relation to any
                                                                               alleged agreement not to discount levels of Terminal
                                                                               Handling Charge (TCH). Any agreement by the Applicants
                         (Case T-213/00)
                                                                               relating to TCHs and to be subject to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 4056/86 (2).
                         (2000/C 316/54)
                                                                         —     The fines imposed by the Commission are excessive and
                                                                               inappropriate in view of the gravity and duration of the
                   (Language of the case: English)                             alleged infringment, the cooperation of the FETTCSA
                                                                               parties with the Commission and other mitigation factor
                                                                               and the duration of the Commission’s procedure.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 August 2000 by CMA CGM                        —     The Commission’s methodology for setting the levels of
and thirteen other Liner Shipping Companies, represented by                    the fines should be considered as irrational and incoher-
John Pheasant, Catherine Barlen and Matthew Levitt of Lovells                  ent, resulting in discrimination between the FETTCSA
Boesebeck Droste, Brussels and Denis Waelbroeck and Ute                        parties.
Zinsmeister of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
                                                                         (1) Applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  inland waterway (OJEC No L 175, of 23.7.68, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and
—     annul the decision in its entirety, or, alternatively, at least        86 of the Treaty to maritime transports (OJEC L 378, of 31.12.86,
      in so far as it was adopted under Regulations 17 and                   p. 4).
      1017/68;
—     in any event, that the fines imposed by Article 4 of the
      decision be annulled or reduced; and
—     that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’ against the
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
The applicants in the present case are fourteen of the liner
shipping operators which were party to the FETTCSA, an                                            (Case T-214/00)
agreement between shipping lines operating on the North
Europe/Far East trade. The FETTCSA was entered into on                                            (2000/C 316/55)
5 March 1991 and was terminated on 10 May 1994. The
contested decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81
EC and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1917/68 (1), by agree-
ing not to discount from published tariffs for charges and                                   (Language of the case: French)
surcharges, and requires the applicants to refrain from agree-
ments on concerted practices having the same or similar effect.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The decision imposes fines.
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 August 2000 by ‘X’, represented
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:             by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission deducting 2 ×                  —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000 of
      BEF 60 000 from his monthly salary;                                       26 June 2000;
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant interest at the         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs, with all the
      legal rate from 21 December 1999;                                         legal consequences which that entails.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and principal arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The present action is directed against Commission Regulation
By order of 4 December 1997 made in Case C-60/97 X v                      (EC) No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the
Commission (1), the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal                 Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain
lodged against the judgment delivered by the Court of                     names in the Register of protected designations of origin and
First Instance on 12 December 1996 in Case T-130/95 X v                   protected geographical indications provided for in Council
Commission (2). The applicant/appellant in those proceedings              Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographi-
was ordered to pay the costs.                                             cal indications and designations of origin for agricultural
                                                                          products and foodstuffs (1), in so far as it recognises ‘canard à
The applicant in the present case, who was also the appli-                foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ as a protected geographical indication.
cant/appellant in the cases cited above, contests the defendant’s
decision to deduct at source from his salary a sum equivalent             In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
to the costs which, according to the Commission, were
incurred by it in the proceedings before the Court of Justice
and the Court of First Instance.                                          —     that the French authorities have failed to comply with the
                                                                                essential procedural requirements laid down in
                                                                                Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                                 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
                                                                                cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
—     infringement of Articles 62 and 85 of the Staff Regu-                     ucts and foodstuffs (2);
      lations of officials;
                                                                          —     that the protected geographical indication (PGI) in issue
—     abuse of powers in the present case;
                                                                                cannot be registered, in the light of the requirements laid
                                                                                down by the applicable Community rules. In that regard,
—     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                the applicant states in particular that the promoters of
      reasons.
                                                                                the PGI have sought to procure the attachment of
                                                                                extremely rigorous conditions to the production of
(1) Not published.                                                              ‘canard du Sud-Ouest’ which have nothing to do with the
(2) [1996] ECR-SC I-A-603 and [1996] ECR-SC II-1609.                            origin or monitoring of such production or the quality of
                                                                                the production of ducks and ‘foie gras’, but which tend to
                                                                                place the greatest emphasis on a purely small-scale
                                                                                production structure, despite the fact that such a structure
                                                                                has no bearing whatever on the authenticity or quality of
                                                                                the manufactured products. The requirements imposed
                                                                                have no connection, therefore, with any attempt to secure
                                                                                protection in respect of geographical origin, and cannot
Action brought on 22 August 2000 by Société Civile                              legally form part of the registration of the PGI without
d’Exploitation Agricole La Conqueste against the Com-                           distorting the object of the European protection pro-
            mission of the European Communities                                 cedure.
                          (Case T-215/00)                                       The applicant further claims that those unwarranted
                                                                                conditions attaching to the registration of the PGI of
                          (2000/C 316/56)                                       ‘canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ indicate a wish to distort
                                                                                free competition amongst the producers of ‘foie gras du
                                                                                Sud-Ouest’ themselves.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 (1) OJ L 154 of 27.6.2000, p. 5.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
European Communities on 22 August 2000 by Société Civile
d’Exploitation Agricole La Conqueste, established at Morlaas
(France), represented by Arnaud Lyon-Caen, of the Paris Bar.