CELEX: C1999/071/55
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Rumpstad ATM B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-201/98)

13.3.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         France, thus imposing significantly higher prices on the
                                                                    French market.
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 15 October 1998
     rejecting M.L.B.'s complaint against Microsoft France
     and Microsoft;
                                                                    Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Rumpstad ATM
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.                            B.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                           Communities
                                                                                         (Case T-201/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                          (1999/C 71/55)
The applicant, a wholesale distributor of computer                                 (Language of the case: French)
software and equipment, had purchased French-language
Microsoft software in Canada at a lower price than in
France and subsequently sold them in France. According              An action against the Commission of the European
to the applicant, Microsoft subsequently attempted to               Communities was brought before the Court of First
prevent the importation of that software from Canada.               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
The applicant therefore submitted a complaint to the                1998 by Rumpstad ATM B.V., having its registered office
Commission,      claiming     that    Microsoft's     attitude      at Oud-Beijerland (Netherlands), represented by Marc van
constituted an infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the            der Woude and Thomas Chellingsworth, of the Brussels
EC Treaty.                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
That complaint was rejected by the contested decision.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the Commission, no infringement of                     Ð order the Commission to pay certain sums by reason
Article 85 of the EC Treaty was established on the ground               of fines wrongly imposed, interest on grounds of delay
that Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation enjoy                   and damages;
legal copyright protection which cannot be affected by
dealings outside the EC. Furthermore, no proof was
provided of any attempt by those two companies to                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
influence resale prices. Finally, there can be no finding of
any infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, in the
absence of evidence that the two companies were in a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
dominant position or acted abusively.
                                                                    In 1997, following an invitation to tender in respect of
The applicant submits that that decision is clearly                 Community food aid, the applicant concluded two
unfounded in the light of Community law, as well as the             agreements with the Commission for the supply of
facts and evidence in the case, and that it is vitiated by          shovels, machetes and buckets to Danane (Côte d'Ivoire)
insufficient reasoning, since the Commission did not                and Monrovia (Liberia). The two agreements stipulated
specify the manner in which the evidence produced to it             that the tools were to be delivered by 15 December 1997
did not demonstrate the existence of any infringement.              at the latet and provided for deductions to be made from
                                                                    payment in the event of late delivery.
The applicant considers that Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                    In the event, the Commission made considerable
prohibits any agreement or practice intended directly or
                                                                    deductions from the final payment on the ground that the
indirectly to fix purchase or selling prices or other
                                                                    supplies were subject to at times lengthy delays.
conditions of the transaction, or to seal off the market. In
its assertion, Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation
infringed that article by attempting to influence selling
                                                                    The applicant submits that the deductions (fines) provided
prices.
                                                                    for by the above agreements are contrary to the provisions
                                                                    of Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for
Furthermore, those two companies abused their dominant              the mobilisation in the Community of products to be
position on the market by prohibiting the importation into          supplied as Community food aid (1), as interpreted by the
France of Canadian products similar to those marketed in            case-law and that they must, therefore, be considered
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
invalid. In the alternative, it argues that most of the delays       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were either caused by the Commission, or cases of force
majeure, so that, even if the clauses are considered valid,
                                                                     The applicant states that the contested decision removing
the amount of the deductions made by the Commission
                                                                     him from his post is based on the complaint that he took
should be reduced.
                                                                     part in internal competition COM/B/18/96 with prior
                                                                     knowledge of the subject-matter of some of the tests and
                                                                     without informing the selection board in advance that he
The applicant also seeks an order that the Commission
                                                                     possessed that knowledge. He accepts that complaint, but
pay it interest in respect of delay, since the final payment
                                                                     maintains that the contested decision disregarded the
for the supplies was not made within the period prescribed
                                                                     reasoned opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which
in the agreements.
                                                                     proposed merely the temporary suspension, for a period of
                                                                     two years, of his entitlement to advancement to a higher
                                                                     step.
Finally, it submits that when the agreements were put into
effect, the Commission questioned the Community origin
of some of the tools and halted their manufacture at the             The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
time, which caused it to incur considerable additional               of his application:
expenditure.      The    applicant     considers    that   the
Commission's action constitutes a breach of contract
                                                                     Ð Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
entitling it to damages.
                                                                         reasons, as regards, in particular, the reasons for
                                                                         which a more severe penalty was imposed, as well as
(1) OJ L 204, 25.7.1987, p. 1.                                           the failure to mention any possible mitigating factors.
                                                                     Ð Manifest error of assessment giving rise to a breach
                                                                         of the principles of proportionality and non-
                                                                         discrimination.
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Yannis Tzikis                  Ð Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    interests of officials.
                       (Case T-203/98)
                                                                     Ð Infringement of procedural requirements and of the
                        (1999/C 71/56)
                                                                         rights of the defence, inasmuch as the appointing
                                                                         authority did not even carry out an investigation or
                                                                         make any detailed and impartial inquiries.
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December
1998 by Yannis Tzikis, residing at Boortmeerbeek                     Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
(Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and                   Others against the Commission of the European
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service                                   Communities
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                                             (Case T-205/98)
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                              (1999/C 71/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the decision taken by the appointing authority               An action against the Commission of the European
    on 27 October 1998, by which it removed the                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
    applicant from his post with effect from 1 November              Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
    1998;                                                            1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
                                                                     AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La
                                                                     Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented
Ð order the Commission to pay damages by way of                      by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot
    compensation for the loss suffered by him as a result            (France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    of the illegality of the decision of the appointing              Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
    authority of 27 October 1998, those damages being
    provisionally quantified in the sum of 1 euro;
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.