CELEX: C2002/084/115
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-329/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels Midland Company against the Commission of the European Communities

C 84/62                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the defendant, as communi-             —     annul the applicant’s staff report for 1995-1997 inas-
      cated to her by letters of 13 February 2001 and 23 Febru-                much as it does not take account of the opinion of the ad
      ary 2001, to apply an age limit set at 65 years to freelance             hoc working party, the ad hoc appeals joint working party
      interpreters and therefore to apply that age limit to her;               and the staff reports Joint Committee, in that it does not
                                                                               assess his duties as a trade union representative and his
                                                                               status as an elected member as being part of the duties
—     annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection of the                      which he is required to undertake in his institution;
      applicant’s complaint by the Commission on 7 September
      2001, received on 10 September 2001;                               —     make an order as to costs requiring the defendant to pay
                                                                               the costs and fees incurred.
—     find that the applicant may continue to work as freelance
      interpreter, for the Community institutions, beyond the
      age of 65;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-
      ally assessed at 1 euro;
                                                                         The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the
                                                                         rejection of his complaint seeking the annulment of his staff
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          report for 1995-1997.
                                                                         In support of his arguments, he claims that certain assessments
                                                                         are not justified and that his professional situation and his
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          career development were adversely affected following his
                                                                         election to a local staff committee and as a result of his union
                                                                         activities. He alleges psychological harassment or mobbing
                                                                         intended to restrict his freedom of association, infringement of
In support of her arguments, the applicant relies on the same            the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
pleas in law as those put forward in T-153/01 Mercedes                   Regulations and breach of the principle of sound adminis-
Alvarez Moreno v Commission (OJ 2001 C 275, p. 11).                      tration.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef                    Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
    against Commission of the European Communities                                              pean Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-329/01)
                         (Case T-326/01)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 84/115)
                         (2002/C 84/114)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Archer
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Daniels Midland Company, represented by Professor Carl Otto
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio                      Lenz, Ms Lynda Martin Alegi, Mr Edward William Batchelor
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of Luxem-                and Ms Marta Garcia of Baker & McKenzie, London (United
bourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.                           Kingdom).
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/63
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                              ings;
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
      2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                  —     order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by
      COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-                      EuroCommerce in the present proceedings.
      tains to ADM at least to the extent that it finds ADM was
      party to an infringement after 4 October 1994;
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
      2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case
      COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-                Pleas in law and main arguments
      tains to ADM;
—     in the alternative, modify Article 3 of the Decision as it
      pertains to ADM, so as to annul or substantially reduce           The applicant is an international association with as its aim
      the fine imposed on ADM therein;                                  the research into and solution of problems concerning trade.
                                                                        The applicant has lodged in this respect several complaints
—     order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the               with the Commission regarding the non-tariff rules and the
      proceedings.                                                      multilateral interchange fees used by payment card organis-
                                                                        ations. The multilateral interchange fee is paid by the acquiring
                                                                        bank (the merchant’s bank) to the issuing bank (the customer’s
                                                                        bank). This fee has, according to the applicant, a direct
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         influence on the fee that a merchant has to pay to his acquiring
                                                                        bank for the use of payment cards for payment by his
                                                                        customers. The non-tariff rules are a set of rules concerning
The grounds and main arguments are similar to those raised              the issuing and acquiring of payment cards.
in case T-322/01 Roquette Frères/Commission
                                                                        The Commission decided, in the contested decision, that there
                                                                        was no need for any action under Article 81 EC Treaty with
                                                                        regard to the non-tariff rules. According to the applicant, this
                                                                        decision violates both the EC Treaty and the EEA agreement.
Action brought on 27 December 2001 by EuroCommerce
A.I.S.B.L. against the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Commission did not respect its
                                                                        right to be heard. In its comments on the second letter sent
                        (Case T-336/01)                                 under Article 6 of Commission Regulation 2842/98, the
                                                                        applicant made a conditional withdrawal of its complaints, in
                                                                        the belief that the Commission would prohibit the multilateral
                        (2002/C 84/116)                                 interchange fee. This fee, according to the applicant, is closely
                                                                        intertwined with the non-tariff rules. Later, the Commission
                  (Language of the case: English)                       changed its opinion on this point. According to the applicant,
                                                                        however, it had then no opportunity to give its comments.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Furthermore, the applicant claims that there has been a
European Communities on 27 December 2001 by EuroCom-                    violation of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and the principle of
merce A.I.S.B.L., represented by Mr Pierre V. F. Bos and Mr             sound administration, in that the Commission failed to
Morten Nissen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Brussels (Belgium).              consider the non-tariff rules and the multilateral interchange
                                                                        fees together. According to the applicant, they should have
                                                                        been considered together in order to establish whether or not
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             they have a detrimental effect on competition. The Com-
                                                                        mission has cleared the non-tariff rules in the contested
—     annul the Commission’s Decision dated 9 August 2001               decision and has the intention of clearing the multilateral
      relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC                interchange fee. The applicant, however, states that these
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                  aspects are closely intertwined and that their joint effect on
      No COMP/29.373 — Visa International);                             competition should have been investigated.