CELEX: C1996/095/33
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-30 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 January 1996 by Européenne Automobile SARL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-9/96)

No C 95/ 16           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30 . 3 . 96
in the general assessment in comparison with the previous           that report, which was drawn up without involving all the
two-year period was not reflected in the detailed marking.          parties concerned, as all such investigations, if properly
Accordingly the staff report was drawn up in infringement           conducted, should, contains several inaccuracies from the
of the relevant rules and the principle of sound                    technical point of view. On 21 April 1994 Somagaz
administration and there was a misuse of powers . Further,          unilaterally terminated the contract, despite having used the
the applicant relies on the one hand on infringement of his         bottles in first as well as the second batch .
rights of defence, since he was not given the opportunity of
defending his interests, and, on the other hand, of                 The applicant claims that the Commission's staff have not
infringement of the duty to state reasons, in view of the fact      taken any steps to authorize payment for the goods
that the Secretary-General of the Parliament to whom the            consigned, causing the applicant significant damage, which
applicant appealed, did not give reasons for his negative           is not only economic; Itamsider has had to bear the costs of
decision .                                                          production and dispatch to Mauritania, without being paid,
                                                                    and as a result finds itself in an extremely difficult financial
                                                                    position, to the extent of suffering an action for the
                                                                    commencement of bankruptcy proceedings .
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission's conduct in
                                                                    the matter entails liability on the part of the Community, in
Action brought on 17 January 1996 by Francesco Perillo              accordance with Article 178 and the second paragraph of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                Article 215 of the EC Treaty, and requests that the
                                                                    Commission be ordered to pay him compensation to make
                         ( Case T-7/96 )
                                                                    good the loss he has suffered.
                           ( 96/C 95/32
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Action brought on 24 January 1996 by Europeenne
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Automobile SARL against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January 1996                                      Communities
by Francesco Perillo, residing at Altamura ( Italy ),
represented by Mario Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                   Case T-9/96 )
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre                                  ( 96/C 95/33 )
Thielen, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay compensation of ECU                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    1 338 775 , subject to increase or decrease during the          Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1996
    proceedings,                                                    by Europeenne Automobile SARL, established at
                                                                    Carcassonne ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
— order the defendant to pay interest calculated on the             Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    amounts due as from 14 April 1994,                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                    Beatrix de Bourbon .
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay to it the sum of
                                                                        ECU 200 000 as damages for the Commission's
The applicant, who manufactures gas-bottles under the                   non-contractual liability,
name of Itamsider, states that when tenders were invited
under call No 3605 of the Regional Gas Programme,
financed by the European Development Fund, he secured              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the contract to supply 40 000 empty gas-bottles to Societe
Mauritanienne de Gaz ( Somagaz ). To fulfil its duties under        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract, Itamsider sent the goods to Mauritania in four
batches : 7 007 bottles on 5 October 1993 , 24 381 on              The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
1 December 1993 , 6 779 on 7 February 1994 and 1 889 on             intermediary in the distribution of motor vehicles by means
14 February 1994; the goods were stored in the port and             of parallel imports made by it as agent for the final consumer
subsequently removed by Somagaz . Somagaz was critical of           in accordance with the provisions of Commission
the quality of the bottles but without giving much detail . On      Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , criticizes the failure of that
1 March 1994, on the initiative of the Commission's                 institution to respond, first, to the complaint submitted by it
representative in Mauritania , an expert's report on the first     to DG IV on 27 July 1994 criticizing the steps taken by the
batch of bottles was drawn up . The applicant maintains that        PSA Group in relation to the Peugeot concessionaires of its
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 17
foreign subsidiaries with a view to preventing them from             In the alternative, the Court should :
agreeing to sell vehicles to French intermediaries, and,
second, to the request for action which it sent to the               — annul the position adopted by the Commission on
Commission on 27 September 1995 .                                         11 December 1995 in so far as it may be deemed a
                                                                         decision for the purposes of Article 189 of the EC
The applicant pleads that it has been the subject of a judicial          Treaty .
offensive on the part of Auto Cite for alleged unfair                In any event, the Court should :
competition, the ultimate aim of which was to prevent it
from carrying on its business as an agent.                           — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
                                                                         entirety .
According to the applicant, a further stratagem has been
established at national level and employed at local level by         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Peugeot concessionaire with a view to preventing
parallel imports, consisting in private inquiries in the form        The applicant relates that, on 10 March 1993 , it submitted
of affidavits made by process-servers with a view to                 to the Commission a complaint against the French State
obtaining information on Europe Auto's customers and                 concerning the methods of financing and operating the
sources of supply.                                                   French public television broadcasting channels, France 2
                                                                     and France 3 ( France-Television ). That complaint was based
Lastly, according to the applicant, those restrictive practices      on the infringement by the French State of Articles 85 , 90 ( 1 )
are recurring at the level of the Member States, in which            and 92 of the EC Treaty . On 15 July 1995 , after conducting
French agents tend to obtain their supplies, by the exertion         an investigation for more than two years, the Commission
of pressure and the imposition of prohibitions on local              informed the applicant that it had decided to arrange for a
distributors of Peugeot vehicles, on threat of the loss of their     study to be undertaken concerning the general question of
dealership .                                                         the financing of public television broadcasting in the
                                                                     Member States . On 3 October 1995 the applicant sent a
According to the applicant, the Commission's failure to act          letter of formal notice calling upon the Commission to act.
also gives rise to non-contractual liability on its part.            By letter of 11 December 1995 , the Director-General for
                                                                     Competition informed the applicant that, following the
                                                                     results of the study, a letter had been sent to the French
                                                                     authorities and that, depending on the response to that
                                                                     letter, the Commission would be able to adopt a decision as
                                                                     to what action to take with regard to the complaint.
Action brought on 2 February 1996 by Television                      The applicant points out that, despite the letter of formal
Frangaise 1 against the Commission of the European                   notice, the Commission failed to reply — and, accordingly,
                           Communities                               failed to take steps — within the two-month period
                                                                     provided for in the second paragraph of Article 175 of the
                         ( Case T-17/96 )                            EC Treaty and that it had therefore failed to act, within the
                           ( 96/C 95/34 )                            meaning of Article 175 .
                                                                     As regards France-Television 's infringement of Article 85 of
                  (Language of the case: French)                     the Treaty, the Commission was under a duty to send the
                                                                     applicant the communication provided for in Article 6 of
An action against the Commission of the European                     Regulation No 99/63 , which it failed to do . As regards the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    part of the complaint concerning the infringement of
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1996              Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 of the Treaty, the Commission was
by Television Fran^aise 1 , whose registered office is in Paris,     likewise under a duty not to let matters rest at the
represented by Georges Vandersanden, Jean-Paul Hordies               preliminary stage described in Article 93 ( 3 ), but to initiate
and Agnes Maqua , of the Brussels Bar, with an adress for            the procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ), which it failed to do .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.                                                Alternatively, in the event that the Commission's reply of
                                                                     11 December 1995 is deemed to constitute an express
                                                                     decision in response to the complaint, the applicant argues
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         that that decision should be declared unlawful on the
                                                                     ground that it fails to state that France 2 and France 3
— declare that the Commission, by not adopting a position            infringed, on the one hand, Article 85 and, on the other,
     within two months of the applicant's letter of formal           Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 , and thereby acted contrary to the
     notice of 3 October 1995 , failed to act,                       principle of equal treatment (a breach of the principle of
                                                                     contrary to the principle of equal treatment (a breach of the
— declare that, by thus failing to act, the Commission failed        principle of non-discrimination ) of private and public
     to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,                     broadcasting channels, whose task of providing television
                                                                     broadcasting services is in this case the same, and which
— call upon the Commission to act, by adopting a decision            should benefit from identical conditions of competition .
     with regard to the complaint lodged by the applicant on
     10 March 1993 .