CELEX: C1998/358/41
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Asia Motor France and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-154/98)

C 358/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
excludes Italy from the list of Community areas classified           Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Associazione
as being in deficit within the meaning of Regulation (EEC)           Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio Nazionale Bieticoltori
No 1785/81, or the basic regulation for the sugar sector. It         and Associazione Bieticoltori Italiani against Council of
is claimed that in the light of the rationale and the                                     the European Union
objectives of regionalisation, it must be concluded that a                                  (Case T-153/98)
particular area of the Community is to be regarded as in
deficit' if its requirements have to be covered by sugar                                     (98/C 358/40)
imports. The economic data for Italian sugar imports and
exports for recent years, including those for the period                             (Language of the case: Italian)
prior to the adoption of the contested measures, show a
long-standing prevalence of imports over exports. It
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
follows that, by withholding regionalisation for the 1998/
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
99 marketing year for all the beet-growing areas of Italy,
the contested measures are contrary to the objectives                1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio
                                                                     Nazionale Bieticoltori and Associazione Bieticoltori
pursued by the basic regulation and are liable to
                                                                     Italiani, represented by Massimo Moretto, Roberto
compromise the proper functioning of the common
market organisation in question.                                     Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice, Padua and
                                                                     Bari Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                     Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue des
                                                                     Nerviens.
The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of legal
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations.          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
In its view, there is no doubt that the function of the limit        should:
date of 1 August, the date on which the intervention price
for white sugar must be fixed, as required by Article 3(4)           Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, is to allow interested                    Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
parties, and primarily beet growers, to ascertain the                     fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
minimum price that they will be guaranteed for the                        intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
marketing year for which they are sowing. The applicant                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
also observes that the contested measures, although issued                beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
only at the end of June 1998, have an impact on the 1998/                 costs (OJ 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
1999 marketing year for which sowing was undertaken in                    necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
February or March of the same year and even, for                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
southern areas, in November and December 1997. The                        1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
applicant's position is therefore that it knows the price for             standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
the sale of beet covered by supply contracts already
concluded and that that price no longer coincides with the
derived price at a time when it cannot change its                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
production plans. Moreover, the contested regulation is                   Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
also inimical to the related principle of the protection of               of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
legitimate expectations as far as beet growers are                        applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
concerned since they legitimately relied on the thirty-year               an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
basis of the minimum guaranteed price for beet produced
in Italy.                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The contentions and principal arguments adduced in
                                                                     support are the same as those put forward in Case T-152/
As regards breach of the principle of non-discrimination,            98 Ponte S. Pietro v. Council'.
also alleged by the applicant, it is contended that, since
the pattern of imports and exports of sugar in certain
countries treated as being in deficit by the contested
measures and in Italy have remained substantially the
same for the marketing years from 1990 to 1997, it is
hard to see why, against that background, Italy is
excluded from the list of deficit areas for the 1998/1999            Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Asia Motor
marketing year.                                                      France and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                                         European Communities
                                                                                            (Case T-154/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 358/41)
The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to state
reasons.
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/23
Instance of the European Communities on 23 September                have been reasonable and equitable for a statement of
1998 by the companies known as Asia Motor                           objections to have been sent thirteen years ago to the
France, established at Livange (Luxembourg), JMC                    members of the cartel and to their trade association. The
Automobiles, established at Livange (Luxembourg),                   cartel was already sufficiently established at that time. It
Monin Automobiles, established at Bourg-de-PeÂage                   would have been for the undertakings involved to
(France), and EAS, established at Livange (Luxembourg),             establish in the course of discussions that the so-called
represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar,              voluntary limitation arrangement, in return for compliance
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    with which they derived advantages including the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.             exclusion of competition from Japan, did not reflect the
                                                                    exercise by them of any commercial choice but was due to
                                                                    irresistible pressure placed on them by the French State
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         involving a threat of substantial loss for them.
Ð annul unconditionally the Commission's Decision of                The applicants also claim that, with the exception of
    15/16 July 1998;                                                Article 115, the Treaty makes no provision for any
                                                                    category of lawful practices which could include a
                                                                    voluntary limitation scheme such as that in issue, since
Ð take formal note that the applicants reserve the right            France has never requested authorisation to take
    to claim compensation for the damage suffered;                  protective measures in the sphere in question. Nor was it
                                                                    open to the Commission to rely on any French rules in
                                                                    order to exempt the members of the cartel from the
                                                                    application of Community competition law, inasmuch as
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                    such rules simply did not exist.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (1) Case T-7/92 Asia Motor France and Others v. Commission
                                                                        [1993] ECR II-671.
                                                                    (2) Case T-387/94 Asia Motor France and Others v. Commission
                                                                        [1996] ECR II-965.
The applicants in the present case, importers of Suzuki,
Daihatsu, Isuzu and Subaru vehicles into France who are
currently in judicial liquidation, contest the rejection by
the Commission of the complaint lodged by them thirteen
years ago concerning a system involving the voluntary
limitation of imports into France of various other makes
of Japanese vehicles. According to the decision in issue,
                                                                    Action brought on 29 September 1998 by RJB Mining plc
quota-sharing arrangements, non-compliance with which
could lead to the imposition of administrative penalties,                against Commission of the European Communities
were exclusively a matter for the French administrative                                    (Case T-156/98)
authorities, pressure was placed on each importer
individually, and the complaint did not concern the                                         (98/C 358/42)
Community and had ceased to be relevant.
                                                                                   (Language of the case: English)
The applicants maintain, first of all, that, by adopting the
contested decision, the defendant disregarded the                   An action against the Commission of the European
judgments delivered by the Court of First Instance on               Communities was brought before the Court of First
29 June 1993 (1) and 18 September 1996 (2) in relation to           Instance of the European Communities on 29 September
the same infringements; those judgments imposed a duty              1998 by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey
to re-examine the matter in the light of objective, relevant        and Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
and consistent evidence concerning the question whether             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
the French authorities placed irresistible pressure on the          8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
undertakings concerned to adopt the behaviour impugned
in the complaint, so that the conduct of the accredited
importers and metropolitan France fell outside the ambit            The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the competition rules since those undertakings lacked
the requisite margin of autonomy.
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission Decision of 29 July 1998
                                                                         approving the acquisition of control by RAG
According to the applicants, it is extraordinary for the                 Aktiengesellschaft of Saarbergwerke AG and Preussag
defendant institution now to maintain that the fact that                 Anthrazit GmbH on the grounds set out in the
the matter goes back many years is such as to render                     application; and
the complaint no longer relevant, when it was the
Commission itself which, having failed to conduct the
administrative procedure with due diligence, was directly           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
responsible for that delay. In the applicants' view, it would            including those of the applicant.