CELEX: C1998/184/27
Language: en
Date: 1998-06-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 April 1998 by Transpo Maastricht B.V. and Marco Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, versus Commission of the European Communities (Case T-63/98)

13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/15
Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 1998               To the extent that Italian authorised dealers had their
by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by               dealerships terminated, or were threatened with
Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service         termination, in connection with re-exports, this took place
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11             exclusively on account of irregular supplies in breach of
Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.                                            the dealership contract to unauthorised resellers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The applicant's conduct was maintained within the
                                                                   bounds of the block exemption Regulations (EEC) No
                                                                   123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95. The exemption in respect
Ð annul the Commission's decision (IV/35.733-VW) of                of the applicant's distribution system was still valid.
    28 January 1998, in accordance with the first
    paragraph of Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                   The applicant maintains it is wholly inaccurate to suggest
                                                                   that the alleged infringements began as early as 1987 and
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           continued after October 1995. The documents referred to
                                                                   by the Commission could relate only to the years 1993 to
                                                                   1995.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Finally, the applicant maintains that the conditions for a
In the contested decision, the Commission accused                  fine are not met. Even assuming the Commission's
Volkswagen, together with its subsidiaries Audi AG and             findings to be correct, the fine of ECU 102 000 000 would
Autogerma S.p.A., of infringements of Article 85(1) of the         be excessive.
EC Treaty, in that it concluded agreements with the Italian
dealers in the distribution network in order to prevent or
restrict sales to end users from other Member States acting
either in person or through an agent and to authorised
dealers in the distribution network established in other
Member States.
                                                                   Action brought on 16 April 1998 by Transpo Maastricht
Volkswagen was required, inter alia, to desist immediately         B.V. and Marco Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, versus
from the infringements of which it was accused and, on                      Commission of the European Communities
account of their seriousness, to pay a fine of ECU                                        (Case T-63/98)
102 000 000.
                                                                                           (98/C 184/27)
In the applicant's view, the Commission breached its duty
to act fairly both in the proceeding and on the merits. The                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
proceeding was not carried out in an objective and
impartial manner. The applicant's exhaustive and
substantiated objections to the heads of complaint were to         An action against the Commission of the European
a large extent completely ignored, and the evidence was            Communities was brought before the Court of First
assessed in a one-sided and prejudiced manner.                     Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1998
                                                                   by Transpo Maastricht B.V., Maastricht, and Marco
                                                                   Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, Terneuzen, represented by J.
The Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty              van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
by failing to state reasons for the decision in the proper         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Entringer,
manner. The evidence did not even prove individual                 34a, Rue Philippe II.
measures by the applicant against legitimate re-exports
from Italy to Germany and Austria, let alone the alleged
overall strategy. The applicant had merely tried to prevent
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
irregular re-exports through sales to unauthorised
resellers. That was not only legally permissible, but
actually required.
                                                                   1. annul the decision, contained in the Commission's
                                                                       letter of 13 February 1998, to reject the applicants'
The Volkswagen subsidiary Autogerma had not agreed or                  request for an exemption under Article 8(3)(c) of
practised any splitting of profit margins, whereby sales by            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 (1), and grant
dealers outside its area were placed at a disadvantage. To             the exemption requested;
the extent that the differentiation in bonuses according to
the residence of the end purchaser, as alleged by the
Commission, was agreed and practised, it was permissible.          2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.6.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               to the aims of the Community structural improvement
                                                                  policy, that the Commission incorrectly assessed the
                                                                  technical features of the vessel and infringed the principle
The request made to the Commission concerns a vessel
                                                                  of equal treatment.
which was adapted in April 1996 for the transport of dry
fly ash.
                                                                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on
The applicants submit, inter alia, that the criteria applied          structual improvements in inland waterway transport (OJ
by the Commission were not published and are contrary                 L 116, 28.4.1989, p. 25).