CELEX: C1998/184/26
Language: en
Date: 1998-06-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Volkswagen AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-62/98)

C 184/14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.6.98
suffered by him, since he considers that he has adequately          According to the contested decision, the above system
demonstrated the service-related fault and the causal link          contains provisions which involve discrimination on the
between that fault and the damage suffered by him.                  grounds of nationality, conflict with the principle of
                                                                    freedom of establishment and constitute aid to encourage
                                                                    investment in ships in a way which is liable to infringe
(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.97, p. 25.
                                                                    Community rules and grants aid for the leasing of ships,
                                                                    which constitutes operating aid of the type not allowed by
                                                                    Community guidelines.
                                                                    In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Sardegna Lines Ð
Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna SpA against the                    Ð infringement of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of
         Commission of the European Communities                         21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (1), which
                                                                        forms part of a system of incentives in the industry
                        (Case T-58/98)
                                                                        which has not been taken into consideration at all in
                         (98/C 184/25)                                  the procedure in question;
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Ð error of assessment and misuse of power in that the
                                                                        legal and factual elements used to support the
                                                                        contested decision are absent. In this respect, the
An action against the Commission of the European                        Commission made an error of assessment with regard
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       to the alleged substantial amendments which Law 11/
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998                    1988 made to Law 20/1951, which led the
by Sardegna Lines Ð Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna                    Commission to characterize the system of regional
SpA, represented by Francesco Caruso, Ugo Iaccarino,                    incentives at issue as new aid' and to consider it
Beniamino Carnevale and Claudia Caruso, of the Naples                   subject to the obligation to give prior notice pursuant
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   to Article 93(3) of the Treaty;
Chambers of Francesco Caruso, 2A Rue Van Moer,
Brussels.
                                                                    Ð infringement and erroneous application of Article 92(1)
                                                                        of the Treaty inasmuch as trade between the Member
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             States is not affected and competition is not distorted;
                                                                    Ð that the conditions for the application of
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October                      Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty are met in that
    1997 concerning aid granted by the Region of Sardinia               Sardinia is an underdeveloped Italian region, and the
    (Italy) to shipping companies in Sardinia (OJ L 20 of               defendant should have taken account of the isolation
    27.1.1998, p. 30);                                                  and remoteness of the region;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Ð breach of essential procedural requirements inasmuch
                                                                        as the statement of reasons for the decision is
                                                                        inadequate.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    (1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990, p. 27.
The applicant contests the Commission's decision of
21 October 1997 inasmuch as it considers a system of aid
granted by the region of Sardinia to shipping line to be
unlawful.
                                                                    Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Volkswagen AG
The allegedly unlawful aid was introduced by Sardinian
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Regional Law No 20 of 15 May 1951 which established a
fund at the Credito Industriale del Banco di Sardegna for                                   (Case T-62/98)
the grant of loans to shipping companies intending to
                                                                                             (98/C 184/26)
build, purchase, convert or repair vessels. The grant of
such loans was subject to the condition that the
beneficiary undertaking had its head office, country of                            (Language of the case: German)
domicile for tax purposes and port of register in the
region of Sardinia. A number of amendments, which the
applicant claims were substantial, were made to that                An action against the Commission of the European
system of aid subsequently by Regional Law No 11/98.                Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/15
Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 1998               To the extent that Italian authorised dealers had their
by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by               dealerships terminated, or were threatened with
Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service         termination, in connection with re-exports, this took place
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11             exclusively on account of irregular supplies in breach of
Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.                                            the dealership contract to unauthorised resellers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The applicant's conduct was maintained within the
                                                                   bounds of the block exemption Regulations (EEC) No
                                                                   123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95. The exemption in respect
Ð annul the Commission's decision (IV/35.733-VW) of                of the applicant's distribution system was still valid.
    28 January 1998, in accordance with the first
    paragraph of Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                   The applicant maintains it is wholly inaccurate to suggest
                                                                   that the alleged infringements began as early as 1987 and
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           continued after October 1995. The documents referred to
                                                                   by the Commission could relate only to the years 1993 to
                                                                   1995.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Finally, the applicant maintains that the conditions for a
In the contested decision, the Commission accused                  fine are not met. Even assuming the Commission's
Volkswagen, together with its subsidiaries Audi AG and             findings to be correct, the fine of ECU 102 000 000 would
Autogerma S.p.A., of infringements of Article 85(1) of the         be excessive.
EC Treaty, in that it concluded agreements with the Italian
dealers in the distribution network in order to prevent or
restrict sales to end users from other Member States acting
either in person or through an agent and to authorised
dealers in the distribution network established in other
Member States.
                                                                   Action brought on 16 April 1998 by Transpo Maastricht
Volkswagen was required, inter alia, to desist immediately         B.V. and Marco Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, versus
from the infringements of which it was accused and, on                      Commission of the European Communities
account of their seriousness, to pay a fine of ECU                                        (Case T-63/98)
102 000 000.
                                                                                           (98/C 184/27)
In the applicant's view, the Commission breached its duty
to act fairly both in the proceeding and on the merits. The                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
proceeding was not carried out in an objective and
impartial manner. The applicant's exhaustive and
substantiated objections to the heads of complaint were to         An action against the Commission of the European
a large extent completely ignored, and the evidence was            Communities was brought before the Court of First
assessed in a one-sided and prejudiced manner.                     Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1998
                                                                   by Transpo Maastricht B.V., Maastricht, and Marco
                                                                   Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, Terneuzen, represented by J.
The Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty              van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
by failing to state reasons for the decision in the proper         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Entringer,
manner. The evidence did not even prove individual                 34a, Rue Philippe II.
measures by the applicant against legitimate re-exports
from Italy to Germany and Austria, let alone the alleged
overall strategy. The applicant had merely tried to prevent
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
irregular re-exports through sales to unauthorised
resellers. That was not only legally permissible, but
actually required.
                                                                   1. annul the decision, contained in the Commission's
                                                                       letter of 13 February 1998, to reject the applicants'
The Volkswagen subsidiary Autogerma had not agreed or                  request for an exemption under Article 8(3)(c) of
practised any splitting of profit margins, whereby sales by            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 (1), and grant
dealers outside its area were placed at a disadvantage. To             the exemption requested;
the extent that the differentiation in bonuses according to
the residence of the end purchaser, as alleged by the
Commission, was agreed and practised, it was permissible.          2. order the defendant to pay the costs.