CELEX: C2000/034/47
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-258/99: Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel C.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 34/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
Action brought on 24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l.                 — Improper examination of the case and misuse of powers.
    against Commission of the European Communities                            According to the applicant, the facts have clearly been
                                                                              distorted, essentially as a result of defective and incorrect
                                                                              examination of the case.
                        (Case T-254/99)
                                                                         — Breach of the principle of legal certainty and infringement
                         (2000/C 34/46)                                       of Articles 38 and 44 of Regulation No 4028/86.
                                                                         — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                             essential procedural requirements. The opinion given by
                                                                              the Fisheries Management Committee was never disclosed
                                                                              to the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l., represented by Paolo
Piva, of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s               laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
chambers, 7 Val Ste Croix.                                                   different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                             operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                             existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, P. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                             Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the
— Annul the decision of 5 August 1999 cancelling the                         fisheries and aquaculture sector (OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7).
    contribution granted to Ca’Pasta S.r.l. by Commission                (3) OJ 1997 C 387, p. 23.
    decision C(91)654/97 of 29 April 1991;
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
These proceedings relate to the grant of aid to the applicant            Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelfbe-
company to encourage structural improvements in the fishing              dieningsgroothandel C.V. against the Commission of the
sector and aquaculture. With a view to modernising an                                          European Communities
aquaculture unit at Contarina (Veneto), the applicant applied
for and obtained a Community contribution of
ITL 942 300 004, representing 40 % of the permitted expendi-                                        (Case T-258/99)
ture. Following an administrative check, involving Commission
representatives, it was discovered that the undertaking had                                          (2000/C 34/47)
been transferred without prior authorisation, the latter being
deemed necessary under Article 24 of Regulation
No 4253/88 (1). After completion of the procedure under
Article 44 of Regulation No 4028/86 (2) the Head of Unit of                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
Directorate General XIV adopted the contested measure,
confirming ‘continuation of the internal procedure with a view           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
to cancellation of the contribution and recovery of the amount           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
disbursed’. An action was brought against that decision,                 European Communities on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelf-
namely Case T-274/97 Ca’Pasta v Commission (3). An order                 bedieningsgroothandel C.V., established in Amsterdam
was made dismissing the action as inadmissible.                          (Netherlands), represented by I.G.F. Cath and K.J. Tattersall, of
                                                                         the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
This action is directed against the final decision whereby the           at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
defendant brought the administrative procedure to a close.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are the same as those put forward in the abovementioned Case             (a) annul, wholly or in part, the Commission’s decision of
T-274/97.                                                                     20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) concerning State aid
                                                                              granted by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the
                                                                              region bordering Germany, at least in so far as it concerns
The following claims are made, in particular:                                 the applicant, and, in so far as may be necessary, order
                                                                              such detailed arrangements and measures to be adopted as
— Breach of the principle of collegiality.                                    the Court shall think fit;
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 34/25
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              nomic and legal information necessary to assist the national
                                                                        court in the application of the Community competition rules.
                                                                        The applicant considers that the Commission’s reply to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the Court’s request was inadequate because the information
                                                                        provided by it is totally devoid of any factual and legal
                                                                        assessment of the rules applicable to specialist medical prac-
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             titioners trained and established in the United Kingdom and
T-237/99.                                                               whether or not the legal conditions are satisfied for the
                                                                        application by the national court of the prohibitions contained
                                                                        in Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        82 EC) to the anti-competitive practices of the GMC.
                                                                        The applicant claims therefore that the Commission is guilty
                                                                        of misuse of powers in so far as it has concealed from the
                                                                        national court and from the parties to the proceedings before
                                                                        the national court the nature and extent of the factual and
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by Anthony Gold-                      legal information it may be able to supply to national court
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-                   under the principle of active and sincere cooperation pursuant
                               ties                                     to Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and failed to
                                                                        take all steps necessary within its power, in breach of the
                                                                        principle of good faith, to ensure all relevant documents are
                        (Case T-262/99)                                 produced to the national court and to the parties and its
                                                                        officials are authorised to give evidence in the national
                         (2000/C 34/48)                                 proceedings. He further claims that the Commission is guilty
                                                                        of breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
                                                                        tations and breach of the principle of legal certainty.
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               The applicant submits that as a direct consequence of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              conduct alleged the national court was not in a position to
European Communities on 28 October 1999 by Anthony                      determine whether the conditions for the application of the
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,            prohibitions contained in Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
of Merriman White Solicitors, 61 Fleet Street, London EC4Y              Treaty were satisfied. This meant that the national court was
1JU, United Kingdom.                                                    effectively prohibited from adopting all necessary measures
                                                                        forthwith to terminate the anti-competitive conduct of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             GMC.
— order the defendant to supply the factual and legal
    information requested by the national court under Article 5
    of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC);                               Finally, the applicant asserts that the Commission’s action
                                                                        caused him to sustain damage which consists of non-material
                                                                        damage for harm to his professional reputation as a specialist
— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of
                                                                        medical practitioner recognised at Community level as a result
    EUR 100 000 to the applicant;
                                                                        of the publication to all registered medical practitioners in the
                                                                        United Kingdom of a fact sheet by the GMC containing
— order the amount of damages to bear default interest at the           information misrepresenting the legal status of specialist
    annual rate of 4,5 per cent from the date of the judgment           medical practitioners whose names appear on the Specialist
    until actual payment;                                               List, including the applicant, contrary to Directive 84/450 in
                                                                        so far as it implies that those practitioners are not specialist
— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those            medical practitioners and furthermore that they are engaged
    of the applicant.                                                   in the illegal pursuit of a regulated profession.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) OJ 1993 C 39, p. 6.
The applicant explains that in the context of his action against
the General Medical Council (GMC), the High Court made an
order pursuant to the Notice on Co-operation between national
courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty (1), requiring the Directorate-General for
Competition of the European Commission to provide eco-