CELEX: C1996/318/38
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 September 1996 by the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises against the Council of the European Union (Case T-135/96)

26 . 10 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 318 /21
Community, as the defendant has done with regard to                        small and medium-sized undertakings referred to in
travelling time, constitutes discrimination against officials              Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Agreement on social policy,
serving in a third country. He notes that, in the defendant's
view, an official who is entitled to reimbursement of the cost
of an air ticket on the ground that the distance between his          — order the Council to pay the costs .
place of employment and his place of origin is more than
500 kilometres, whether he is serving in a third country or
within the Community, cannot be allowed more than two                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
days travelling time unless he produces evidence that he
needs additional time, whereas , in the applicant's view, the         This action concerns the first Directive to implement an
two situations are fundamentally different. The two days'             agreement concluded by management and labour at
travelling time given to officials serving in the Community is        Community level on the basis of the Agreement on social
intended for officials whose place of employment is a few             policy annexed to the Protocol on social policy annexed to
hundred kilometres from their place of origin, whereas                the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht Treaty .
officials serving in third countries are often several thousand       The applicant, an employers ' association combining small
kilometres from their place of origin, in local conditions            and medium-sized undertakings at European level ,
which make journeys longer and more arduous .                         challenges that Directive , in so far as it concerns those
                                                                      undertakings .
Last, the applicant claims that the directive adopted on
21 December 1994 is unlawful, in that it was adopted
without prior consultation of the joint committees in                 As early as 1983 the Commission drew up a proposal for a
accordance with Article 1 10 of the Staff Regulations, and in         Directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons .
that it contains no valid statement of the reasons on which it        When that proposal was blocked , the Commission decided
is based but does contain numerous instances of                       in January 1995 to make use in this matter of the new
inconsistency,         inaccuracy,        imprecision       and       procedure provided for in the Agreement on social policy .
contradictions .                                                      During the initial consultations with management and
                                                                      labour, in accordance with Article 3 ( 2 ) of the Agreement,
                                                                      the applicant was thus consulted, together with other
                                                                      organizations . It was, by contrast, systematically excluded
                                                                      from the negotiations which led to the adoption of the
                                                                      measure, even though it had on several occasions expressed
                                                                      the wish to be included and given reasons why it should
Action brought on 5 September 1996 by the European                    be .
 Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                      The applicant considers that the contested act is of direct
                          Case T-135 /96 )                            and individual concern to it. It observes in that respect that
                          ( 96/C 318/38 )                             Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Agreement on social policy expressly
                                                                      refers to the need not to hold back the creation and
                                                                      development of small and medium-sized undertakings .
                (Language of the case: French)                        More specifically, the question of parental leave is of crucial
                                                                       importance for small and medium-sized undertakings .
 An action against the Council of the European Union was
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           The applicant submits that clause 2 ( 3 ) ( f) of the framework
 Communities on 5 September 1996 by the European                       Agreement, by providing merely for the possibility of
 Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises ,            authorizing special arrangements to meet the operational
 established at Brussels, represented by Francis Herbert, of           and organizational requirements of small undertakings, fails
 the Brussels Bar, and Genevieve Tuts , of the Liege Bar, with         to satisfy the requirement of the said Article 2 ( 2 ), in that an
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               obligation has become a possibility and medium-sized
 Carlos Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde .                                      undertakings are not mentioned . The applicant states in this
                                                                       respect that by letter of 13 December 1 995 it made criticisms
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          of the framework Agreement, concentrating on the
                                                                       following three points : the failure to extend to
     primarily:                                                        medium-sized undertakings the possibility of postponing
                                                                       parental leave for reasons related to the undertaking;
 — annul , pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Council           inclusion of a system of exceptions to protection against
     Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework                dismissal in cases where the employer's economic interests
     agreement on parental leave concluded by Unice, CEEP              are prejudiced by maintaining the contract of employment
     and the ETUC (').                                                 during and after parental leave ; and the need, with respect to
                                                                       the craft sector, to limit the right to parental leave to the
     in the alternative :                                              period of infancy.
 — annul , pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the said          The applicant pleads breach of the principle of equality, of
     Directive with respect solely to its application to the           Articles 2 ( 2 ), 3 ( 3 ) and 4 of the Agreement on social policy,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/22          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
and of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality           In the applicant's opinion, that explanation does not
referred to in the 12th recital in the preamble to the              disclose the considerations of fact and law on which the
contested Directive . The applicant further claims that the         Commission based its decision . Specifically, the
principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti has been infringed,        Commission failed to consider the significance of the fact
in that the Commission itself, in its communication of              that the information it decided to divulge constituted
14 December 1993 concerning the application of the                  ' business secrets '.
Protocol on social policy, recognized the applicant as a
representative organization .
                                                                    Action brought on 9 September 1996 by Valio Ltd against
Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Automobiles                          the Commission of the European Communities
Peugeot SA against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                       ( Case T-l 37/96
                      ( Case T-136/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 318/40 )
                        ( 96/C 318/39
                                                                                   (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Instance of the European Communities on 9 September
Instance of the European Communities on 6 September                 1996 by Valio Ltd , represented by Francis Herbert and
1996 by Automobiles Peugeot SA, established at Paris,               Daniel M. Tomasevic , of the Brussels Bar, of Loeff Claesy
represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an            Verbeke with an adress for service in Luxembourg at the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67 rue Ermesinde, L-1050
Jacques Loesch, 1 1 rue Goethe .                                    Luxembourg .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 1996
    concerning complaints 35.988 , 35.989 , 35.990 and              — annul the decision contained in a letter adressed by the
    35.991 ,                                                             Commission to the Finnish Permanent Representative to
                                                                        the European Unions ( BI.4 D(96 ) SP/cd/501 ) in so far as
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                               it concerns the 'Voilevi ' and 'Voimariini ' trade marks;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  — alternatively, if the Court finds that the Decision does
                                                                        not infringe Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , declare,
The applicant, a company which markets Peugeot vehicles                 upholding the applicant's plea of illegality , that
in Europe, challenges the decision taken by the Commission,             Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 is inapplicable to the
as part of the investigation of four complaints questioning             applicant to the extent that it would prohibit the further
the conformity with Community competition rules of the                  use of its trademarks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' for the
standard exclusive distribution agreement for those                     spreadable fats concerned,
vehicles , to communicate to the companies which had
submitted the complaints certain information obtained               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
from the applicant.
That decision was taken in spite of the applicant's                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
indications that most of the information was subject to
protection as business secrets, in that it set out the              Valio is a Finnish company in the food sector which
conditions of membership of the Peugeot network and                 manufactures and markets products which are fat mixtures
described the functioning of that network .                         used as spreads, all of which are traded on the Finnish
                                                                    market under the 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' trade marks
The applicant claims that the case-law as stated in the             registered by Valio in 1980 and 1979 , and which have been
judgment in Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie v. Commission                    used by Valio since then . 'Voi ' in Finnish means butter . The
1986 [ECR ] 1965 has not been observed . It submits that            trade marks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' do not have any
while the Commission is the sole judge of the confidentiality       specific meaning.
of the documents supplied to it in an investigation, the
corollary of such a discretion is a strict obligation to state      Under Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , which sets standards
reasons . According to the applicant, the contested decision        for spreadable fats, 'Voimariini ' is to be labelled under the
is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons . The          sales description ' blend ' while 'Voilevi ' is to be labelled
only explanation given by the Commission does no more               under the sales description ' half-fat blend '.
than assert the need to communicate the information in
question in order to be able to assess what action to take on       By letter dated 21 June 1996 addressed to the Finnish
the complaints, in full knowledge of the facts , after              Representation to the European Union , the Commission
obtaining the observations of those concerned .                     stated that the exclusive use of the sales description ' butter',