CELEX: C1997/199/81
Language: en
Date: 1997-06-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-127/97)

No C 199/34                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Coca-Cola                              Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Nuova Sidercamuna
Enterprises Inc. against the Commission of the European                   SpA ( in liquidation) against the Commission of the
                               Communities                                                     European Communities
                            ( Case T-127/97)                                                      ( Case T-130/97)
                              ( 97/C 199/ 81 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/ 82 )
                  (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                          An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997                     Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
by Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc ., represented by Michael                    by Nuova Sidercamuna SpA ( in liquidation ), represented
Reynolds, Allen & Overy, with an address for service in                   by Enrico Adriano Raffaelli , of the Milan Bar, Ivo Van
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Zeyen Beghin Feider, 4                      Bael, of the Brussels Bar, and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the
Rue de l'Avenir.
                                                                          Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Freddy Brausch of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                          Rue Goethe .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Commission Decision of 22 January                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
     1997 is void insofar as it finds that:
                                                                          — annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 4288 def. of
     ( a ) TCCC controls CCE within the meaning of                              18 December 1996 (') concerning aid for closures
            Article 3 ( 3 ) of the EC Merger Regulation;                        envisaged by Italy as part of the restructuring of its
                                                                                private steel industry,
     ( b ) the supply of cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks
            in Great Britain comprises a distinct market; and
                                                                          — order the Commission, pursuant to the provision made
                                                                                for unsuccessful pleadings, to pay the costs of the
     ( c ) CCSB is in a dominant position in the market for                     present proceedings,
            colas in Great Britain,
                                                                          — adopt all other measures for the protection of the
— alternatively, declare that the following decisions :                         applicant's interests required by the principles of law
                                                                                or equity.
      (a ) TCCC controls CCE within the meaning of
            Article 3 ( 3 ) of the EC Merger Regulation;
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      ( b ) the supply of cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks
            in Great Britain comprises a distinct market; and              The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as
                                                                           that contested in      Case T-122/97 Ferriera     Lamifer v.
      (c ) CCSB is in a dominant position in the market for                Commission ( 2).
            colas in Great Britain;
                                                                           The applicant's first plea is that the contested decision is
      contained in the Commission Decision of 22 January                   the result of a misassessment of the relevant legislation
       1997 are void,                                                      and contradictory reasoning on the part of the
                                                                           Commission . Since the Community legislation on the
                                                                           restructuring of the steel industry, including the Aid
 — order the Commission to pay CCE's costs .
                                                                           Code ( 3 ), aims to reduce market overcapacity, the
                                                                           Commission has infringed Article 4 of the Aid Code by
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       declaring that the measures in favour of the applicant
                                                                           were incompatible with the common market even though
                                                                           they would have brought about the permanent cessation
 The Grounds and main arguments are similar to those                        of the production concerned, and its approach is obviously
 submitted in Case T-125/97 Coca-Cola Company/                             contradictory. The applicant also argues that the
 Commission (').                                                            Commission acted contrary to the principle of
                                                                            effectiveness in assessing the compatibility of the Italian
                                                                            measures on the basis of a formal criterion — such as the
 (') See p . 32 of this Official Journal .
                                                                            regularity of production — rather than in the light of the
                                                                            primary objective of Community steel policy, that is, the
                                                                            shedding of production capacity.