CELEX: C1995/208/59
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Enosi Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-103/95)

No C 208/26           EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 8 . 95
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995                    Action brought on 17 March 1995 by Jean-Pierre Landuyt
by Bernard Laga , who runs a farm as part of the                            against the Commission of the European Communities
Landuyt-Laga farmers ' association ( GAEC ), whose                                                ( Case T-94/95 )
registered office is at Grisolles ( France ), represented by
Jean-Francois Le Petit, of the Rennes Bar, with an address                                          ( 95/C 208/58 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse Mai,
31 Grand'Rue .                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                    by Jean-Pierre Landuyt, who runs a farm as part of the
     pay the compensation provided for by the proposal for a             Landuyt-Laga        farmers '    association ( GAEC ),    whose
     Council Regulation COM(93 ) final submitted on                      registered office is at Grisolles ( France ), represented by
     13 May 1993 ( x ) and accordingly should determine the              Jean-Francois Le Petit, of the Rennes Bar, with an address
     amount pursuant to that proposal for a Regulation,                  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                         31 Grand'Rue .
— order payment of default interest thereon of 8 % from                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
     19 May 1992 in accordance with Article 12 of that
     proposal for a Regulation,                                          — order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                              pay the compensation provided for by the proposal for a
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                         Council Regulation COM(93 ) final submitted on
     pay the sum of fifty thousand French francs ( FF 50 000 )                13 May 1993 (^ and accordingly should determine the
     for irrecoverable costs, or the equivalent in ecus, and all              amount pursuant to that proposal for a Regulation,
     the costs .
                                                                         — order payment of default interest thereon of 8 % from
                                                                              19 May 1992 in accordance with Article 12 of that
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           proposal for a Regulation,
The applicant is a farmer who, having given an undertaking               — order the Commission of the European Communities to
not to market milk pursuant to Council Regulation ( EEC )                     pay the sum of fifty thousand French francs ( FF50 000 )
No 1078/77, was allocated a provisional specific reference                    for irrecoverable costs, or the equivalent in ecus, and all
                                                                              the costs .
 quantity in 1989 and offered compensation under
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ; his action centres around
 the decision of the Office National Interprofessionnel du               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Lait ( National Milk Trades Board , ONILAIT) refusing to                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 pay him that compensation on the ground that his specific                in Case T-93/95 Laga v. Commission .
 reference quantity cannot be regarded as being definitive,
 since he has never personally resumed milk production,                   (') OJ No C 157, 9 . 6 . 1993 , p . 11 .
 contrary to Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
 No 857/ 84 .
                                          tor
 The applicant considers that the contested decision is the
 result of a mistaken assessment of the facts of the matter by            Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Enosi
 the competent authority. He points out in particular that                Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados against the Commission of
 because the prefectural decision allocating him a provisional                              the European Communities
 specific reference quantity was taken unduly late, he had                                        ( Case T-103/95 )
 already rotated the crops on an area of 188 hectares 20
 centares which he farmed within the Landuyt-Laga farmers '                                           95/C 208/59 )
 association ( GAEC ), planting wheat and colza, whereas a
 maize crop would have been needed in order to feed cattle .                               (Language of the case: Greek)
 That was why the applicant found himself obliged to rent
 cows, which he had to do because he was unable to replenish              An action against the Commission of the European
 a herd in time . Temporary rental of that sort is not in any             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 way contrary to custom and practice, whereas it has been                 Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1995 by
 established that he possessed the necessary plant for milk               the Enosi Tsimentoviomichanion Ellados ( ETE ), established
 production, and the schedule of analyses performed by                    in Athens , represented by Ioannis Yeorgakis and Maria
 Uriane demonstrates that those cows formed part of the                   Golfinopoulou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
 applicant's farming operation as a whole .                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom Loesch,
                                                                          Avocat, 11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.
  (M OJ No C 157, 9 . 6 . 1993 , p . 11 .                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          — annul the Commission Decision of 30 November 1994
                                                                               in connection with a proceeding under Article 85 of the
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 8 . 95         1 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/27
    EC Treaty ( IV-33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) to the              knowledge — exclusively in their own interests in order,
    extent to which it concerns the applicant,                     inter alia, to divert exports of Greek cement into other
                                                                   Community markets .
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
    applicant under the abovementioned decision,                   The applicant also alleges that the Commission used
                                                                   inconsistent criteria in order to determine which of the
                                                                   participants in a meeting of the representative board at
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                which the alleged infringements are said to have been
    including the fees of his appointed lawyers,                   decided upon, were to be deemed to have taken part in the
                                                                   unlawful agreement, and that it determined in an entirely
— make such further provision as may be required by the            arbitrary manner the duration of the infringement alleged
    law.                                                           against ETE.
                                                                   The applicant goes on to allege that the exchange of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                information in connection with pricing in the framework of
                                                                   Cembureau was of no commercial utility and was not
In the contested Decision the Commission found that the            capable of influencing and indeed did not influence
applicant which during the relevant period of time                 intra-Community trade .
comprised the totality of Greek undertakings producing
cement, in common with other national associations of              Moreover, the applicant considers that its participation in
cement industries and undertakings producing cement, had           the ECEC is in no way reprehensible and it refutes as
infringed the provisions of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty.     lawfully and factually unfounded the reasoning by which
That infringement consisted in its participation in ( a ) an       the Commission makes allegations against the ECEC solely
agreement whose purpose was to respect domestic markets            and exclusively because its members are at the same time
and to regulate transfers of cement from one country to            members of Cembureau and of the EPC ( European Policy
another, ( b ) agreements for the exchange of information in       Committee ), whilst it considers the criteria for determining
connection with pricing and concerted practices in order to        the date of commencement and termination of the alleged
facilitate the agreement referred to at ( a ) above, and in        infringements by ECEC to be unclear and erroneous .
meetings of the representative board and executive board of
the Cembureau ( European Cement Association ), and .(c ) in        In the applicant's view the Commission has not given
concerted practices in the framework of the ECEC                   evidence of its allegations against the applicant, nor did it
( European Cement Export Committee ) for the purpose of            provide sufficient reasons for its Decision, at the same time,
exchanging information as regards the situation both in the        moreover, it has prevented ETE from obtaining access to the
Community markets and in the markets of non-member                 complete file on the matter, inasmuch as only a part of the
countries with a few to preventing market penetration of           statement of complaints was communicated to ETE.
competitor undertakings in the Community in other
internal markets of the Community. In respect of those             Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission
infringements the Commission imposed on the applicant a            imposed on it a fine of the same amount as was imposed on
fine in the amount of ECU 100 000 .
                                                                   other associations which took part in much more frequent
                                                                   and more serious infringements, thereby infringing both the
The applicant maintains at the outset that, as moreover            principles of equal treatment and proportionality and the
expressly acknowledged by the Commission, the traditional          provisions of Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17.
markets for Greek cement until 1985 were the markets of
the Middle East and North Africa with the consequence that
the participation up until then of ETE in Cembureau cannot
be associated with the agreement to 'respect domestic
markets ' since the members of ETE had no reason to be
present and indeed no interest in the Community markets.
But when, following the collapse of the Arab and North             Action brought on 12 April 1995 by Tsimenta Xalkidos AE
African markets in 1986 , the Greek cement manufacturers             against the Commission of the European Communities
turned to the intra-Community market, the rapid increase in                              ( Case T-104/95 )
sales of Greek cement in Community markets demonstrates                                    ( 95/C 208/60 )
that ETE was the only member of Cembureau to express its
disagreement with the rule on respecting domestic
markets .                                                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
Furthermore , the applicant considers that it is illogical of the  An action against the Commission of the European
Commission to rely on the mere fact of ETE's membership            Communities was brought before the Court of First
of Cembureau in order to assimilate its conduct to that of         Instance of the European Communities on 12 April 1995 by
the other members of Cembureau which are alleged on the            Tsimenta Xalkidos AE, established in Athens , represented
basis of undisclosed documents to have engaged in unlawful         by Panayiotis Bernitsa, of the Athens Bar, with an address
conduct. The applicant maintains that the leading European         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe
industrial concerns in the sector operated within the              Dupont, of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue
framework of Cembureau — and always without ETE's                  Mathias Hardt, B. P. 39 , L-2010 Luxembourg.