CELEX: C2000/355/73
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-305/00: Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

C 355/34                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      pursuant to the general implementing provisions (GIP)
      by paying interest at a rate of 3,5 % per annum, calculated
      on the basis of the capital sum required to ensure the number
      of years of pensionable service with which she is to be credited     This present action is directed against the Commission’s
      under the Staff Regulations in respect of the periods to which       decision of 11 July 2000 C (2000) 1099), which withdraws
      such interest relates;                                               the grant made to Massalombarda Colombani S.p.A. by
                                                                           Commission Decision No C (88) 1005/275 of 30 June 1988
—     order the repayment to the applicant of any amount                   concerning a grant of aid by the EAGGF, Guidance Section,
      overpaid as a result of the difference between the                   pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 for project
      transferable capital sum together with interest of all kinds         No 88.41.IT.003.0, entitled ‘Modernisation of a fruit and
      and the capital sum required to ensure payment together              vegetable processing establishment in Portomaggiore (Ferrara)’.
      with interest payable to the Commission; and
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           It is pointed out in this regard that one year before Massalom-
                                                                           barda Colombani was acquired by the applicant it was
                                                                           inspected by the Italian Finance Ministry and the Commission
                                                                           jointly for the purpose of verifying the implementation of an
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           EAGGF project, approved by Decision No C (91) 225576 of
                                                                           28 October 1991. During that inspection certain irregularities
                                                                           were discovered in the documentation and payment of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in
                                                                           final part of the grant provided for was suspended. The
Case T-303/00 Caballero Montoya v Commission.
                                                                           following year three other projects were checked. In those
                                                                           cases too the Commission found various irregularities.
                                                                           The applicant stresses the fact that it never received any
                                                                           information from the vendor, just as no information was given
                                                                           concerning the state of the other EAGGF projects undertaken
                                                                           by Massalombarda.
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia
Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     Meanwhile, as a result of the irregularities found in the 1994
                                                                           inspection, in 1997 the Commission proceeded to discontinue
                                                                           one of the projects checked, namely, the project relating to the
                         (Case T-305/00)                                   Massalombarda plant. That company having been acquired by
                                                                           the applicant, it fell to an undertaking which had no connection
                                                                           at all with the matter to bear the burden of the decision.
                         (2000/C 355/73)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        In support of its claims the applicant pleads:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —      that the contested decision is unlawful for want of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        reasoning;
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Società
Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
represented by Maria Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano
Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg              —      that the decision is unlawful and that the factual grounds
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13b Avenue Guillaume.                            were incorrectly determined, in that the Commission
                                                                                  ought not to have considered it necessary to specify in its
                                                                                  decision to which invoices it was referring;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —      that the Commission’s decision is unlawful on account of
—     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
                                                                                  misinterpretation of the obligations undertaken by the
      EC, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2000;
                                                                                  recipient and of infringement of the Community rules on
                                                                                  the proper working of the market, and also on the criteria
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      for selecting projects suitable for financing;
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/35
—     infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC)                   Action brought on 27 September 2000 by WorldCom Inc.
      No 4235/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down pro-                     against the Commission of the European Communities
      visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
      as regards coordination of the activities of the different
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-                                      (Case T-310/00)
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments (1). It claims in this respect                               (2000/C 355/75)
      that the irregularities discovered have not affected the
      functioning of the project or the conditions for action,
      that the project has been fully implemented and no
      objection has been made by the Commission in that                                      (Language of the case: English)
      connection and that the defendant has withdrawn the
      aid, when it has the power only to suspend or reduce aid;           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     breach of the principle of proportionality.                         European Communities on 27 September 2000 by WorldCom
                                                                          Inc., Mississippi (USA), represented by K.P.E. Lasok QC, Brian
                                                                          Hartnett and Jean-Yves Art of Squire Sanders & Dempsey,
(1) OJ L 374 of 31. 12. 1988, p. 1.                                       Brussels.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2000)
                                                                                1693 final of 28 June 2000 in Case No COMP/M.1741
                                                                                — MCI WorldCom/Sprint; and
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia
Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European                      —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                          Communities
                         (Case T-306/00)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2000/C 355/74)                                  By Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                          declared incompatible with the common market and the
                                                                          functioning of the EEA agreement a proposed concentration
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        between WorldCom and Sprint Corporation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                on the following grounds:
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Società
Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
represented by Maria Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano               —     The proposed concentration fell outside the scope of the
Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   merger regulation, because the merger thresholds were
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13b Avenue Guillaume.                          not satisfied when the contested decision was adopted;
                                                                          —     The Commission lacked competence to adopt the contest-
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ed decision because, prior to its adoption, the parties had
                                                                                withdrawn their notification and their proposed remedies;
—     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
      EC, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2000 (C (2000)
      1752);                                                              —     The Commission erred in defining the relevant service
                                                                                market;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     The Commission erred in finding that the proposed
                                                                                concentration would create a dominant position;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     The Commission committed a series of procedural errors
                                                                                in the course of its investigation of the notified concen-
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                                tration.
forward in Case C-305/00 Conserve Italia v Commission.