CELEX: C1999/086/47
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Brugg Rohrsysteme against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-15/99)

C 86/26               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
Communities on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal                      Ð the regulation infringes the requirements of the
Health, represented by Elisabethann Wright, Ian S.                       precautionary principle as laid down in the
Forrester, Mark D. Powell, Solicitor, and Werner van                     Commission's own Guidelines, in that, whereas that
Lembergen acting on the instructions of Stephan J.                       document calls for a prudent and objectiv risk
Gale-Batten, Solicitor, with an address for service in                   assessment, the circumstances in which the contested
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                             regulation was adopted were the result of a
Grand-rue.                                                               misrepresentation of scientific evidence, with no
                                                                         neutral assessment of the risk involved;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð the regulation fails to observe the requirement of
                                                                         proportionality, in that it will disrupt livestock and
                                                                         poultry business in several Member States, and will
1. annul Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in its entirety or as                also destroy the applicant's virginiamycin business; the
    regards virginiamycin;                                               public interest could have been assured by less drastic
                                                                         measures;
2. take such other or further measures as justice may
    require;                                                         Ð the regulation frustrates the legitimate expectations of
                                                                         all those who believed that the surveys established by
                                                                         EC legislation would actually be conducted and would
                                                                         be treated seriously by the institutions, which were to
3. award the applicant the costs of the present action.                  be guided by them;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ð the statement of the reasons on which the regulation is
                                                                         based is inadequate and defective;
The present application seeks the annulment of Council
                                                                     Ð the regulation is inconsistent with the First Protocol of
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998,
                                                                         the European Convention on Human Rights and
amending, as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of
                                                                         Fundamental Freedoms and with the fundamental
certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
                                                                         right to property recognised by Community law.
additives in feedingstuffs (1), by which virginiamycin has
been removed from the list of feedingstuffs approved for
use in the EC. Virginiamycin is an antibiotic of the                 (1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 4.
streptogremin family of antibiotics, marketed under the
trade name Stafac'. Minute quantities of virginiamycin
are added to feedingstuffs additives developed for pigs,
poultry and cattle.
The contested regulation bans virginiamycin on the                   Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Brugg Rohr-
supposition that its use in animal husbandry may pose a              systeme against the Commission of the European
potential risk of human resistance to synercid, another                                      Communities
antibiotic of the streptogramin family, which has not been
yet authorised in the European Union. According to the                                      (Case T-15/99)
applicant, the risk is entirely theoretical.                                                (1999/C 86/47)
In support of its application, the applicant submits that:                          (Language of the case: German)
Ð procedural errors vitiated the Commission's exercise of            An action against the Commission of the European
    its discretion, errors consisting primarily in failure to        Communities was brought before the Court of First
    take proper steps to inform itself on complex scientific         Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
    matters and failure to obtain full information on all            1999 by Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, whose registered
    aspects of the case;                                             office is in Wunstorf (Germany), represented by Thomas
                                                                     Jestaedt, Hanns-Christian Salger and Martin Sura, of the
                                                                     firm of Boesebeck Droste, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ð the regulation is vitiated by manifest errors of                   Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Matthias Hardt,
    assessment;                                                      Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/27
The applicant claims:                                                          The applicant has since the outset of the proceedings
                                                                               acknowledged its participation in an infringement, and
                                                                               brings its action only in respect of details of the
I.   As its main application, that the Court                                   infringement and the amount of the fine. Whilst not
     should:                                                                   denying that there has been an infringement of
                                                                               Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, it seeks the annulment of
                                                                               the contested decision in so far as it infringes the duty to
1. annul the Commission's decision of 21 October 1998                          state reasons and in so far as retrospective application of
     (C(1998) 3117 final), and its decision of 6 November                      the new guidelines on fines' (2) is unlawful.
     1998 (C(1998) 3415 final and C(1998) 3117
     final/corr);
                                                                               The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the
                                                                               same as in Case T-9/1999.
2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                               (1) See Case T-9/99.
                                                                               (2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
II. I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t t h e C o u r t s h o u l d :        Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the
                                                                                   ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).
1. annul Article 1 of the Commission's decision of
     21 October 1998 (C(1998) 3117 final), and of its
     decision of 6 November 1998 (C(1998) 3415 final and
     C(1998) 3117 final/corr) in so far as the applicant is
     accused of participating:
                                                                               Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Lögstör Rör
     (i) in a cartel covering the whole of the common                          (Deutschland) GmbH against the Commission of the
           market                                                                                   European Communities
                                                                                                        (Case T-16/99)
     (ii) in infringements before December 1994, and after
           February 1996                                                                                (1999/C 86/48)
     (iii) in an agreement and the implementation of
                                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
           concerted measures directed against Powerpipe
           AB.
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European
2. Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
     of the decisions by such amount as the Court                              Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
     considers appropriate.                                                    1999 by Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH, whose
                                                                               registered office is in Fulda (Germany), represented by
                                                                               Hans-Joachim Hellmann, of the firm of Schilling, Zutt
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      and Anschütz, Rechtsanwälte, Mannheim (Germany), with
                                                                               an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                               Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
III. F u r t h e r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t t h e C o u r t
     should:
                                                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3
     of the decisions by such amount as the Court
                                                                               1. annul Commission Decision C(1998) 3117 final/corr
     considers appropriate;
                                                                                    of 21 October 1998 concerning a proceeding under
                                                                                    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/35.691/E-4, Fern-
                                                                                    wärmetechnik-Kartell), as amended by Commission
2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                           Decision C(1998) 3415 final of 6 November 1998, in
                                                                                    so far as it concerns the applicant,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                    or, in the alternative, reduce the fine;
The applicant was fined ECU 925 000 by the Commission
for participating in a cartel between manufacturers and
distributors of district heating pipes (1).                                    2. order the Commission to pay the costs.