CELEX: C2002/118/46
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-77/02: Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

18.5.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —      Take any other measure it may consider appropriate;
In the present case, the applicant, a Spanish frozen tunny               —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
producers’ organisation which has previously contested before
the Court of First Instance a number of Commission regu-
lations providing for compensation to producer organisations
for tuna delivered to the processing industry for the quarters
between 1 July 1999 and 31 December 2000 (2), is challenging
the regulation relating to the period between 1 January and
31 March 2001.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-142/01 (3).
                                                                         The applicant is the parent company of a group which is active
                                                                         in the production and sale of products and systems in the
                                                                         sectors of distribution of electricity, industrial control and
(1) OJ 2001 L 337, p. 25.                                                automation. On 16 February 2001 it formally informed the
(2) Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01.                                         Commission of the concentration it intended to enter into
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.
                                                                         with Legrand, the parent company of a group operating in the
                                                                         production and sale of low-voltage electrical equipment.
                                                                         The commission declared the operation incompatible with
                                                                         the common market. The applicant brought an action for
                                                                         annulment of that decision (Case T-310/01; notice published
                                                                         in OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 15). The Commission then ordered
                                                                         the applicant, on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric                    (EEC) No 4064/89 (1), to separate from Legrand. The latter
  S.A. against Commission of the European Communities                    decision is the subject of the present proceedings.
                          (Case T-77/02)
                                                                         The applicant observes, first, that in its opinion the decision
                        (2002/C 118/46)
                                                                         declaring the concentration incompatible with the common
                                                                         market should be annulled. Since the decision at issue in the
                                                                         present action is the direct consequence of the first decision,
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the unlawfulness of the first decision entails the unlawfulness
                                                                         of the present decision.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant observes further that the effect of the contested
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Schneider                       decision is to deprive the applicant of its lawfully held rights
Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-             of property.
resented by Antoine Winckler and Eric de La Serre, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         In support of the present application, the applicant claims,
                                                                         first, that there has been an infringement of its right of access
—     Annul in its entirety, and in the alternative in part, the         to the case-file and its right to a proper hearing. The applicant
      Commission’s decision of 30 January 2002 requiring                 also considers that the report of the hearing officer did not
      undertakings to be separated (Case COMP/M.2283 —                   examine compliance with the rights of the defence throughout
      Schneider/Legrand) on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council         the procedure. The applicant also claims that there was a
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                       breach of the obligation to state reasons.
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.5.2002
The applicant further claims that there was a violation of               Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of                                the European Central Bank
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It submits that
there is no effective remedy before a court with full jurisdiction                                (Case T-83/02)
against decisions of the Commission concerning the control
of concentrations. The Commission must therefore itself                                          (2002/C 118/47)
comply fully with the principle of impartiality. To that end,
the investigative and decision-making functions must, in the                               (Language of the case: German)
applicant’s view, be entrusted to different persons or bodies,
which was not the case.
                                                                         An action against the European Central Bank was brought
The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the general         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
principle of Community law that any person whose rights have             on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
been infringed is entitled to an effective remedy. According to          (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.
the applicant, the contested decision interferes with the action
brought by the applicant against the decision declaring the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
operation incompatible with the common market. Any annul-
ment which might follow from that first application would be             —     annul the formal warning given by letter of 28.2.2002;
deprived of a great part of its effect as a result of the decision
at issue in the present application. The contested decision thus         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
also constitutes an infringement of the principle of good
administration, given that it obliged the applicant to bring a
fresh application in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the         Pleas in law and main arguments
first application.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, argues in support
                                                                         of his claim that the formal warning at issue is null and void,
The applicant then claims that the Commission exceeded its
                                                                         inasmuch as it is based on incorrect factual allegations, and
territorial jurisdiction by laying down certain conditions               that the complaints on which that warning is based are totally
for the separation. The applicant further submits that the
                                                                         unjustified. The applicant’s conduct does not reflect any
Commission did not comply with Article 8(4) of Regulation                continuing pattern of poor performance, and the applicant has
No 4064/89. That article, according to the applicant, requires           adequately performed his contractual duties.
the Commission to restore effective competition, not to restore
competitors in the market in question, as was done in the
contested decision. In that decision, finally, the Commission            Furthermore, the defendant is precluded by the obligation of
also failed to comply with the general principle of pro-                 an employer to have regard for the welfare and interests of his
portionality and made manifest errors of assessment.                     employees from taking into account certain facts by way of
                                                                         justification for the giving of the warning at issue. An
                                                                         employer is under an obligation forthwith to rebuke the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on           person concerned in respect of any matters on which he
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of      proposes to rely by way of justification for the adoption of
    30.12.1989, p. 1, republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990, p. 13).      measures adversely affecting the employee. In addition, the
                                                                         defendant’s conduct infringes the European rules on data
                                                                         protection.