CELEX: C1997/074/52
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Elf Atochem against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-9/97)

No C 74/26            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Elf Atochem                    As regards the annulment of the reports themselves, the
   against the Commission of the European Communities               applicant states that the very existence of the documents
                         Case T-9/97 )
                                                                    which its representatives refused to sign, but which were
                                                                    countersigned by the representatives of the Member State,
                         ( 97/C 74/52 )                             constitutes an act adversely affecting it, since those
                                                                    documents — which, whilst imperfect, are in the style of
                                                                    reports — are liable to have an influence on the
                (Language of the case: French)                      establishment of the facts investigated by the Commission,
                                                                    on their characterization, thereby altering the applicant's
                                                                    legal situation to its detriment, on the developments in the
An action against the Commission of the European                    matter and on the preparation of the final act. Instead of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   running the risk of nullifying the final act which may be
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January                  adopted by the Commission, it would seem preferable, in
 1997 by Elf Atochem, having its seat at Puteaux (France ),         the interest of the sound administration of justice and
represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an            providing greater protection for the right to a fair hearing,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                to declare the acts adversely affecting the applicant null
Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe.                                         and void before they produce more serious effects liable to
                                                                    vitiate the whole of the procedure .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in their entirety the reports on the investigation
     into the company Elf Atochem and the annexes
     thereto, namely:                                               Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Antoinette Losch
                                                                     against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                                            ( Case T-13/97 )
     — the report of the investigation on 18 November
         1996, drawn up on 18 and 19 November 1996,                                           ( 97/C 74/53 )
         comprising, in Annex 1 , a record of the oral
         explanations of Elf Atochem which the
         representatives of that company refused to sign,                            (Language of the case: French)
     — the report of the investigation on 19 and                    An action against the Court of Justice of the European
         20 November 1996 , drawn up on 20 November                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
         1996, comprising, in Annex 1 , a record of the oral        Instance of the European Communities on 20 January
         explanations of Elf Atochem which the                      1997 by Antoinette Losch, residing at Capellen,
         representatives of that company refused to sign.           represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                    Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 8 November 1996 the Commission informed the
applicant by fax that it had decided to undertake an
investigation pursuant to Article 14 ( 2 ) of Regulation            — annul the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the
No 17 into Elf Aquitaine and its subsidiaries and, in                    applicant's request that her name be entered on the list
particular, the applicant . That investigation took place on             of persons having manifested their interest in being the
18 , 19 and 20 November 1996 .                                           subject of a decision terminating their services as a
                                                                         result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
The applicant seeks the annulment of the reports drawn
up by the Commission's agents, since it considers that the          — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Commission has infringed its right to a fair hearing, first,
by drawing up, after the event, reports relating to the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
discussions which they had had with certain members of
the applicant's staff ( for which Article 14 of Regulation
No 17 makes no provision ) and, second, by misusing the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
procedure laid down by Article 14 of Regulation No 17 in            those previously advanced in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and
order to try to obtain information which may be obtained            Others v. Court of Justice (').
only on the basis of Article 11 of that Regulation and
within the framework of the procedural guarantees                   H OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996, p . 33 .
attaching to its implementation, and, lastly, by drawing up
those documents in a manner which is open to challenge
in any event.