CELEX: C2003/251/25
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-269/03: Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

C 251/12              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            18.10.2003
Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’ Bank Cards                   disproportionate, since the Commission's investigation of the
Group against the Commission of the European                            notification by the Group was still in progress and there has
                          Communities                                   been a long and constant tradition of cooperation by the
                                                                        Group with the Commission's services.
                        (Case T-266/03)
                        (2003/C 251/24)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (1) First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ,
An action against the Commission of the European                            English Special Edition, 1959-1962, p. 87).
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’
Bank Cards Group, whose registered office is in Paris, repre-
sented by Alain Georges and Javier Ruiz Calzado, lawyers.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Socratec — Satellite
                                                                        Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-269/03)
—     annul the Commission's Decision C(2003) 1524/9 of                                           (2003/C 251/25)
      7 May 2003, ordering the CB Bank Cards Group and
      its subsidiaries to submit to an investigation under                                  (Language of the case: German)
      Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 (1);
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
—     order the removal from the file of all documents seized           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
      and other evidence brought to the knowledge of the                of the European Communities on 30 July 2003 by Socratec —
      Commission during the investigation, and their return             Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-
      to the Group;                                                     GmbH, Regensburg (Germany), represented by M. Adolf and
                                                                        M. Lüken, lawyers.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
      the Group in connection with the present action for               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      annulment.
                                                                        —      annul the Commission's Decision of 30 April 2003 (Case
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                COMP/M.2903);
In support of its action, the applicant pleads, first, infringe-        —      in the alternative, annul the Commission's Decision of
ment of the duty to state reasons for the contested decision. As               30 April 2003 (Case COMP/M.2903) in so far as the
the Commission failed to state the presumptions it wished to                   decision allows the participating undertakings
verify, the applicant found itself unable to grasp the scope of                DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and
its duty of cooperation while at the same time preserving its                  Cofiroute SA to provide telematic services by means of
defence rights. It was also unable to discover whether the                     the toll system commissioned by the Federal Republic of
investigation ordered concerned certain measures already                       Germany;
notified to the Commission or other practices. The applicant
also makes a second plea, alleging infringement of the
principle of proportionality. It first argues that the infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons, alleged in its first plea, has
prevented either the competent national authorities or the              —      in the further alternative, order the Commission to
Court of First Instance itself from reviewing the proportional-                require DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom
ity of the investigation ordered. In the alternative, it argues                AG and Cofiroute SA to postpone completion of the
that recourse to an investigation under Article 14(3) is                       notified joint venture Toll Collect GmbH until the condi-
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/13
      tions in Article 2 of the Commission's Decision COMP/              Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing in Brussels, represented by
      M.2903 have been met;                                              Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 May
The applicant is a German undertaking which is active, in                      2003 rejecting the applicant's request that the employ-
particular, in the area of telematic services for commercial                   ment contract be renewed;
vehicles. It is challenging the Commission's decision of
30 April 2003, by which the Commission found the acquisi-
tion of joint control over the newly formed joint venture, Toll
Collect GmbH, by DaimlerChrysler AG, Deutsche Telekom AG                 —     in the alternative, annul the reference to the Rule against
and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes SA                     Overlapping contained in administrative notice of
(Cofiroute) compatible with the common market and with the                     14 November 1996 entitled New Policy under Article 2
EEA Agreement.                                                                 (a) of the CEOS;
The applicant submits that the Commission approved the
notified concentration following, above all, its acceptance of           —     in the alternative, order the defendant to make good the
the commitments proposed by DaimlerChrysler Services AG                        damage suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal to
and Deutsche Telekom AG and that in doing so it wrongly                        extend the applicant's contract of employment amount-
assessed the effects of the concentration on the market for                    ing, subject to all necessary reservations, to
telematic services even in the light of the commitments.                       EUR 101 328,60, together with default interest;
Furthermore, the Commission wrongly accepted that the com-
mitments were adequate to solve and wholly eliminate the
competition problem.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant also submits that the Commission's definition of
the relevant geographic market was wrong and that its defini-            Pleas in law and main arguments
tion of the relevant product market was incomplete.
                                                                         The applicant worked for the Commission as a national expert
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its          on secondment from 1 December 1997 to 30 November
rights of defence so far as the proposed commitments are                 2000. She was then engaged as a member of the temporary
concerned.                                                               staff from 1 December 2000 to 15 February 2001. Since
                                                                         16 February 2001 she has been covered by a 3-year contract
                                                                         which may be extended by a further year. That contract expires
                                                                         on 30 November 2003 and the applicant requested that it be
                                                                         extended by a year.
                                                                         The applicant states that the request was rejected by the
Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores                         Commission on the basis of the consistent practice of taking
Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European                       account of the length of service as national expert on second-
                          Communities                                    ment when applying the anti-overlap rule. According to that
                                                                         rule, non-official staff at the Commission must not serve for a
                        (Case T-272/03)                                  total in excess of 6 years.
                        (2003/C 251/26)
                                                                         In support of her application, the applicant alleges, first, infrin-
                                                                         gement of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the European Communities, in particular Article 8 thereof,
                                                                         infringement of other staff rules of the institutions and error
                                                                         of law. According to the applicant, the Commission was not
An action against the Commission of the European                         entitled to take into account the period during which she had
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               worked as a national expert on secondment when calculating
of the European Communities on 4 August 2003 by María                    her total time at the Commission.