CELEX: C1999/226/61
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-113/99: Action brought on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company and Galileo International L.L.C against the Council of the European Union

C 226/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
had he not been appointed to that post on the conclusion of              The applicants consider that both the exclusive rights clause
an irregular procedure for which he is in no way responsible,            concerning the general channels and the clause granting
he would by now, in the course of a normal career, have                  preference to TPS by its associates for the special interest
reached the grade of A 4 and could apply for the post.                   channels and the television services which constitute incidental
                                                                         restrictions on the TPS joint venture, should be afforded the
The applicant considers that, by acting in that way, the                 same treatment as the joint venture. B refusing to acknowledge
Parliament has infringed Article 233 EC (ex Article 176),                the incidental nature of the restrictions deriving from those
Articles 4, 7(1), 29(1), 45 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of           clauses, the Commission is forcing the applicants to request
Officials and the internal rules and provisions adopted by the           on a regular basis the renewal of the exemptions granted,
Parliament with regard to promotion and career development,              which runs counter to Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) and the
and that it has violated the principle of equal treatment, the           principle of legal certainty. In the alternative, the applicants
duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials,          claim that the Commission misapplied the exemption criteria
and the principles of proportionality and of the protection              provided for in the third paragraph of the aforementioned
of legitimate expectations. He furthe1 maintains that the                Article 81, and misassessed the minimal duration of the
contravention’s of the above-mentioned rules and principles              exemption.
form part of a process of misuse of powers designed to secure
the appointment to the post in issue of a candidate chosen in            So far as concerns the clause referred to in Article 2 of
advance.                                                                 the contested decision, the applicants emphasise that the
                                                                         Commission, while considering their undertaking not to
                                                                         compete to be a restriction incidental to the setting up of the
                                                                         TPS, has nevertheless decided to restrict to three years the
                                                                         incidental status of that restriction. In their view, by adopting
                                                                         that approach, the Commission has not complied with the
                                                                         rules which it had itself laid clown in the 24th Report on
Action brought on 10 May 1999 by Métropole Télévision                    Competition Policy (1994), thus infringing Article 81 EC (ex
— M6, Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux, France Télécom and                        Article 85) and the principle of legal certainty.
Télévision Française 1 — TF1 against Commission of the
                    European Communities
                        (Case T-112/99)
                        (1999/C 226/60)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Action brought on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company
                                                                         and Galileo International L.L.C against the Council of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        European Union
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 May 1999 by Métropole
Télévision - M6, Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), Suez-Lyonnaise des                                  (Case T-113/99)
Eaux, Nanterre (France), France Télécom Paris, and Télévision
Française 1 - TF1, Paris, represented by Didier Théophile,
Patrick Dunaud and Patricia Elsen, of the Paris Bar, with an                                     (1999/C 226/61)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May. 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in part the Commission Decision of 3 March 1999                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    (Case IV/36.237 - TPS) (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 6) to the extent            Communities on 7 May 1999 by The Galileo Company and
    of annulling Articles 2 and 3 thereof;                               Galileo International L.L.C., represented by Richard Plender,
                                                                         Sara Masters, Katherine Holmes and Daniel Austin, with an
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,
                                                                         Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants criticise the Commission for having granted
only a temporary negative clearance of three years in respect            — annul Article 1(7)(b), second indent, of Council Regulation
of certain clauses in the agreements setting up the Télévision               (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 to the extent to
par Satellite (TPS) company, namely, on the one hand, the                    which that measure applies to operators of Computer
clause on the exclusive transmission of the four channels on                 Reservation Systems in being on the date when the
TPS and the clause on the special-interest channels and                      measure was made; and
television services provided by TPS (Article 3 of the contested
decision) and, on the other, the non-competition clause (Article         — order the Council to pay the costs of the action including
2 of the contested decision).                                                those of the applicants.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants in the present case challenge Article 1(7)(b),             — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 of
second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of                       19 February 1999 in so far as the name Pays d’Auge/Pays
8th February 1999, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89                        d’Auge-Cambremer registers it;
on a code of conduct for computer reservations systems
(CRSs) (1). This article inserts a point (v) in Article 6(1)(b) of        — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
the amended regulation, according to which group of airlines
and/or subscribers is entitled to purchase data for common
processing.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit that, on the premise that it imposes
on operators of CRSs an obligation to supply Marketing                    Since 1998 the applicant has manufactured and sold sider, in
Information Data transfer (MIDT) only once, to group. of                  particular under the names ‘La Cidraie — grand cru du Pays
airlines having a common interest in the common processing                d’Auge’ and ‘Jacques Toy — grand cru cidre du Pays d’Auge’.
of those data, article 6(1)(b) infringes the principle of pro-            The applicant objects to the contested regulation or the ground
portionality. That is so for two reasons:                                 that its application would prohibit the applicant from selling
                                                                          its cider under the name ‘Pays d’Auge’.
— First, if that provision is to be construed as permitting
     airlines to form groups to purchase MIDT, irrespective of
     the size of the airlines concerned or the number of                  The pleas in law made against the regulation in issue are in
     participants in the group, the measure is excessive and is           two parts:
     not necessary to achieve the aim identified during the
     process leading to the adoption of Article 6(1)(b), namely
                                                                          — as to the form, the procedure which led to the adoption of
     to enable travel agents to join together in groups to
                                                                               Regulation No 378/1999 is invalidated by the fact that the
     purchase MIDT.
                                                                               applicant’s opposition to registration of the name ‘Pays
                                                                               d’Auge’ was not forwarded to the Commission;
— Second, the measure is disproportionate by reason of the
     very serious financial implications it has for CRS operators
     engaged in supplying MIDT at the date of the contested               — as to the merits, the regulation which registers the name
     decision.                                                                 ‘Pays d’Auge’ in respect of sider fails to comply with the
                                                                               conditions set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92
                                                                               in that it applies to a product which has no specific features
The applicants also submit that the obligation to state the                    as regards its recommended method of manufacture and is
reasons on which a measure is based has been infringed.                        produced in such a way as to offer no guarantee to the
                                                                               consumer.
(1) OJ L 40 of 13.2.1999, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
Action brought on 11 May 1999 by CSR Pampryl against                      Européen Promotion ‘SEP’ against Commission of the
       the Commission of the European Communities                                               European Communities
                         (Case T-114/99)                                                             (Case T-115/99)
                         (1999/C 226/62)                                                            (1999/C 226/63)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 May 1995 by CSR Pampryl, a                     European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
company whose registered office is in La Courneuve, France,               Européen Promotion ‘SEP’, whose registered office is at Saint
represented by Dominique Couturier-Heller, of the Paris Bar,              Vit (France) represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                  Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.