CELEX: C1997/054/39
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Max Labat Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-185/96)

No C 54/24            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
The applicant observes in that regard that the results in           The applicants claim that the Court should :
the three elections in issue were not falsified, inasmuch as
they reflect the wishes of the electorate . The applicant
would have been elected in any event. Indeed , the                  — annul the decision of the Commission of which they
annulment of election results validly achieved in certain                were notified on 26 September 1996, on the ground
electoral districts by reason of irregularity in the results in          that it contains manifest errors in law and in fact,
other districts would have been permissible only on the
ground of a rule making the validity of the elections
conditional on a minimum proportion of votes being                  — hear and determine the dispute, settling the applicants '
validly cast and requiring a second ballot to be held .                  grievances, and declare that the VAG framework
According to the applicant, the abovementioned provision                 contract fails to meet the eligibility conditions for a
of Annex II to the Staff Regulations provides for a                      block exemption under Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85
minimum proportion of votes to be cast only in elections                 authorizing certain categories of motor vehicle
to the Staff Committee if it is not organized in local                   distribution and servicing agreements, or for an
sections, or to the local section where it is so organized .             individual exemption under Article 85 ( 3 ) of the
Furthermore, that provision requires that a minimum                      Treaty, particularly given the situation of the
proportion of those entitled to vote take part, and not that             Community motor vehicle sector which is marked by
a minimum proportion of votes be validly cast .                          the cumulative effect of a body of similar agreements,
Moreover, before annulling the elections at issue, the              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Commission should, according to the applicant, have
taken account of other overriding factors, such as the
rights of electors who have properly cast their vote and of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
candidates elected on that basis , as well as the basic
principle of the representativity, freedom and secrecy of
the ballot .                                                        By the contested decision of 23 September 1996 , the
                                                                    Commission dismissed the complaint submitted by the
                                                                    applicants alleging that VAG France ( an importer of new
As regards his alternative submissions, concerning the              VW and Audi motor vehicles into France ) infringed
transitional electoral arrangements adopted in March                Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty. According to the
1990 and the partial elections held in November 1996 , the          applicants, that infringement consists in a policy of
applicant pleads infringement of the first, second, third           refusing to sell , conducted in the context of distribution
and fifth paragraphs of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff          agreements between VAG France and its French
Regulations, of Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment           distributors, with the purpose and effect of excluding the
of Other Servants and of the principles of democracy and            applicants from the market for distributing motor vehicles
equality of treatment.                                              of the makes in question . The applicants argue that a
                                                                    distribution system of that nature fails to meet the
                                                                    conditions governing eligibility for a block exemption
                                                                    under Regulation ( FTC ) No 123/85 authorizing certain
                                                                    categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
                                                                    agreements , or for an individual exemption under
                                                                    Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty.
Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Max Labat
Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    The applicants maintain, first, that the contested decision
                       ( Case T-l 85 /96                            is vitiated by errors in both fact and law, and fails to
                          ( 97/C 54/39 )
                                                                    observe the obligations incumbent on the Commission
                                                                    when applying the rules on competition , both in so far as
                                                                    it declares that some of the complaints addressed by the
                (Language of the case: French)                      Commission       itself to  VAG    France   do  not   concern
                                                                    restrictions on competition and in so far as it deliberately
                                                                    glosses over established facts in the file which show that
An action against the Commission of the European                    the restrictions on competition were disregarded for no
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   good reason .
Instance of the European Communities on 22 November
1996 by Max Labat Automobiles 17, represented by
Muriel Amauger, Administrator appointed by the Tribunal             The applicants also argue that, by the contested decision,
de Commerce, Marennes, by judgment of 20 March 1992 ,               the Commission acted unlawfully in attempting to offload
and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso, represented by               its responsibilities for competition matters on to the
Helene Cauzette-Rey, Administrator appointed by the                 national courts on the pretext of lack of Community
Tribunal de Commerce, Nice, by judgment of 10 August                interest and a misinterpretation of the principle of
1989, counsel for the applicants being Christian                    subsidiarity.
Bourgeon , of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Francois Brouxel , 6 rue
Zithe .