CELEX: C2001/186/14
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-67/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service against the Commission of the European Communities

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.