CELEX: C1999/071/54
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Micro Leader Business (M.L.B.) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-198/98)

C 71/28               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
    discriminatory features regarding Spanish producers of         documents of the Centre for Information, Discussion and
    olive oil since a national guaranteed quantity has been        Exchange on Asylum (CIREA), which were requested
    fixed for Spain which falls far short of the yields of         pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    the last two years, and for Italy a national guaranteed        1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    quantity has been fixed which substantially exceeds its        documents requested were as follows:
    production in the last marketing year. Similarly, the
    regulation discriminates against olive oil as a
    Mediterranean product as compared with other                   (a) Common Foreign and Security Policy reports, analyses
    continental products covered by market organisations.              or evaluations for the years 1994 up to and including
    Finally, the reform at issue is not based on common                1998 which had been drawn up by the CIREA or in
    criteria or uniform calculation methods.                           connection with the CIREA, with regard to the
                                                                       situation in those third countries or regions from
                                                                       which a large number of asylum-seekers originate or
Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality. Attention is             in which they reside;
    drawn in particular to the abolition of the export
    regime, which the applicant describes as manifestly
    disproportionate.                                              (b) any reports of joint missions or reports supplied to the
                                                                       CIREA by one or more Member States, concerning
                                                                       missions to third countries by such Member State or
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the right to                  States;
property and infringement of the principle of freedom to
engage in an economic activity.
                                                                   (c) a list drawn up by the CIREA or in connection with
                                                                       the CIREA of those contact persons who are involved
(1) OJ L 210, 20.7.1998, p. 92.                                        with asylum cases in the Member States, together with
                                                                       any changes made to that list subsequently.
                                                                   The applicant submits that the refusal by the Council to
                                                                   grant access to the documents requested infringes
Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer
         against the Council of the European Union                 Ð Council Decision 93/731/EC, and more in particular
                                                                       articles 4(1) and 1(2) thereof,
                       (Case T-188/98)
                        (1999/C 71/53)
                                                                   Ð the obligation to state reasons and
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð the fundamental principle of Community law that
                                                                       European citizens should be granted the widest and
An action against the Council of the European Union was                fullest possible access to the EU Institutions'
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             documents.
Communities on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Me Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Micro Leader
                                                                   Business (M.L.B.) against the Commission of the
                                                                                      European Communities
Ð annul the contested decision whereby the Council
                                                                                         (Case T-198/98)
    refuses to grant access to the document requested by
    the applicant;                                                                        (1999/C 71/54)
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant                         (Language of the case: French)
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
    First Instance, including the costs of any intervening
    parties.                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                1998 by Micro Leader Business (M.L.B.), whose registered
                                                                   office is at Aulnay sous Bois (France), represented by
                                                                   Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar, with an
The applicant seeks the annulment of a refusal by the              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Council of the European Union to grant access to certain           Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         France, thus imposing significantly higher prices on the
                                                                    French market.
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 15 October 1998
     rejecting M.L.B.'s complaint against Microsoft France
     and Microsoft;
                                                                    Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Rumpstad ATM
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.                            B.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                           Communities
                                                                                         (Case T-201/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                          (1999/C 71/55)
The applicant, a wholesale distributor of computer                                 (Language of the case: French)
software and equipment, had purchased French-language
Microsoft software in Canada at a lower price than in
France and subsequently sold them in France. According              An action against the Commission of the European
to the applicant, Microsoft subsequently attempted to               Communities was brought before the Court of First
prevent the importation of that software from Canada.               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
The applicant therefore submitted a complaint to the                1998 by Rumpstad ATM B.V., having its registered office
Commission,      claiming     that    Microsoft's     attitude      at Oud-Beijerland (Netherlands), represented by Marc van
constituted an infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the            der Woude and Thomas Chellingsworth, of the Brussels
EC Treaty.                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
That complaint was rejected by the contested decision.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the Commission, no infringement of                     Ð order the Commission to pay certain sums by reason
Article 85 of the EC Treaty was established on the ground               of fines wrongly imposed, interest on grounds of delay
that Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation enjoy                   and damages;
legal copyright protection which cannot be affected by
dealings outside the EC. Furthermore, no proof was
provided of any attempt by those two companies to                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
influence resale prices. Finally, there can be no finding of
any infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, in the
absence of evidence that the two companies were in a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
dominant position or acted abusively.
                                                                    In 1997, following an invitation to tender in respect of
The applicant submits that that decision is clearly                 Community food aid, the applicant concluded two
unfounded in the light of Community law, as well as the             agreements with the Commission for the supply of
facts and evidence in the case, and that it is vitiated by          shovels, machetes and buckets to Danane (Côte d'Ivoire)
insufficient reasoning, since the Commission did not                and Monrovia (Liberia). The two agreements stipulated
specify the manner in which the evidence produced to it             that the tools were to be delivered by 15 December 1997
did not demonstrate the existence of any infringement.              at the latet and provided for deductions to be made from
                                                                    payment in the event of late delivery.
The applicant considers that Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                    In the event, the Commission made considerable
prohibits any agreement or practice intended directly or
                                                                    deductions from the final payment on the ground that the
indirectly to fix purchase or selling prices or other
                                                                    supplies were subject to at times lengthy delays.
conditions of the transaction, or to seal off the market. In
its assertion, Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation
infringed that article by attempting to influence selling
                                                                    The applicant submits that the deductions (fines) provided
prices.
                                                                    for by the above agreements are contrary to the provisions
                                                                    of Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for
Furthermore, those two companies abused their dominant              the mobilisation in the Community of products to be
position on the market by prohibiting the importation into          supplied as Community food aid (1), as interpreted by the
France of Canadian products similar to those marketed in            case-law and that they must, therefore, be considered