CELEX: C2002/219/52
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-196/02: Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

14.9.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 219/21
Action brought on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau against                    Moreover, the applicant alleges inadequate statement of
         Commission of the European Communities                           reasons for the decision. According to the applicant, the
                                                                          Commission did not investigate the complaint on the basis of
                                                                          Article 82 of the EC Treaty and did not provide reasons for the
                        (Case T-193/02)                                   rejection of that part of the complaint. According to the
                                                                          applicant, FIFA holds a dominant position in the market in
                                                                          football and abuses its position in the related market in services
                                                                          linked to player transfers.
                        (2002/C 219/51)
                                                                          The applicant further alleges error of assessment in that, in his
                   (Language of the case: French)                         view, FIFA’s rules do not comply with Article 81 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty and that those rules cannot benefit from an exemption
                                                                          under Article 81(3).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also claims that the Commission infringed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Article 49 of the EC Treaty. In his view, the Commission does
European Communities on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau,                     not have the power implicitly to confer a power to lay down
residing in Nantes (France), represented by Marguerite Faucon-            rules on the awarding of diplomas on FIFA.
net, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 15 April 2002;
                                                                          Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen
—     order the Commission to pay the cost.                               GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                      munities
                                                                                                  (Case T-196/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (2002/C 219/52)
On 23 March 1998, the applicant lodged a complaint with the
Commission arguing that the rules applied by FIFA to players’                              (Language of the Case: German)
agents were contrary to Community law. That complaint was
registered by the Commission which then carried out a
thorough investigation. Having heard no more as to progress
on his case, the applicant on 31 January 2001 placed the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Commission on notice and on 31 May 2001 brought an action
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for failure to act (Case T-121/00 OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30). On
                                                                          European Communities on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichs-
3 August 2001 the Commission wrote to the applicant
informing him of its intention not to uphold his complaint.               hafen GmbH of Friedrichshafen (Germany), represented by
                                                                          F. Montag and T. Lüubig, Lawyers.
After receiving the applicant’s comments, the Commission
rejected the applicant’s complaint in view of the fact that the
most restrictive provisions were repealed after proceedings
were initiated. In the present case, the applicant contests that          The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision.
                                                                          —     annul Article 3(2) of the Commission’s Decision of
                                                                                9 April 2002 on German State aid to SKL Motoren- und
                                                                                Systembautechnik GmbH in so far as Germany is required
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,
                                                                                by those provisions to recover a sum of EUR 2,71 million
manifest error of assessment of the facts and of the law.
                                                                                (DEM 5,30 million) from MTU Motoren- und Turbinen-
According to the applicant, the Commission’s statement that
                                                                                Union Friedrichshafen GmbH;
the most restrictive of the provisions of FIFA’s rules have been
repealed is wrong. Furthermore, other aspects of the rules have
not been correctly assessed either.                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                               (Case T-205/02)
By this action the applicant is contesting the obligation
imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany by the Com-                                         (2002/C 219/53)
mission in Article 3(2) of the contested decision to recover the
sum of EUR 2,71 million from the applicant. The applicant
claims that the Commission’s findings which led to the                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
adoption of Article 3(2) of the contested decision are in many
regards, both substantive and procedural, incorrect.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant contends that the Commission’s claim against             European Communities on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador
the applicant under State aid law is based exclusively on the          Garcia, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón Garcia
allegation that the applicant acquired certain know-how from           Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.
SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH (‘SKL-M’) under a
reciprocal licensing and cooperation agreement in 1997 for a
purchase price of DEM 6,71 million, when the actual costs              The applicant claims that the Court should:
incurred by SKL-M in developing that know-how exceeded the
sale price. The applicant merely acquired the right to use the
know-how, and the consideration it paid to SKL-M far exceeded          —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
the actual value of the know-how, so that the factual criterion              27 March 2002 refusing to grant the expatriation allow-
that the applicant must have received favourable treatment                   ance and, in consequence, the other related allowances;
under Article 87(1) EC is not met.
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant also claims that the Commission has failed to
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
show that the State was accountable for the conduct of SKL-M
in concluding the licensing and cooperation agreement or the
agreement between the applicant and SKL-M’s insolvency
administrator in 2000.                                                 The defendant in the present case contests the refusal of the
                                                                       appointing authority to grant the expatriation allowance and
                                                                       related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                       Regulations).
The applicant further contends that the applicant did not
receive favourable treatment meeting the criteria for aid              In support of her arguments, the applicant claims:
conferring a competitive advantage. Moreover the Commission
has not shown any actual or potential distortion of competition        —     manifest error of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the
on the markets on which the applicant is active, or any                      contested decision does not consider the work she did for
restriction of trade.                                                        a Delegation of an Autonomous Community in Brussels
                                                                             as ‘work done for another State’ nor the work done by
                                                                             her for the European Parliament as ‘work done for an
                                                                             international organisation’ within the meaning of the
                                                                             Staff Regulations as an exception to the reference period.
Finally the applicant claims that, by one sidedly taking
account of the unsubstantiated allegations of the insolvency           —     breach of the duty to provide reasons.
administrator, the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to assess
the facts impartially and completely.
                                                                       —     breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that the
                                                                             appointing authority treated essentially similar situations
                                                                             differently.