CELEX: C1998/072/58
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-07 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case T-14/98)

7.3.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 72/27
Ð declare that the European Economic Community is                  Chambers of Me Marc Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe,
    liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered        Luxembourg.
    by him as a result of the application of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 Mach 1984 and of
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
    1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84,
    inasmuch as those regulations contain(ed) no provision
    enabling a representative reference quantity to be             Ð annul the decision of 4 November 1997, whereby the
    granted to SLOM transferees who, pursuant to an                    Council refused to grant access to the document
    undertaking given in accordance with Council                       requested by the applicant,
    Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977, did
    not supply any milk during the reference year selected
    by the Member State concerned,                                 Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant
                                                                       to the Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance, including the costs of any
Ð declare that the applicant has suffered a loss of income             interveners.
    amounting to the difference between, on the one hand,
    the revenue Ð including inter alia income from sales
    and additions to his herd Ð which he would in the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    ordinary course of events have received from the
    quantities of milk that he would have delivered if,
    during the period from 1 April 1984 (the date on               The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament,
    which Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 entered into force)           seeks the annulment of a refusal by the defendant to grant
    to 31 March 1994 (the date of expiry of the 1993/              access to a certain document which was requested
    1994 levy period), had he been in possession of the            pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    milk reference quantity to which he was entitled, and,         1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    on the other hand, the income which he actually                document in question is the Report from the Common
    received during that period;                                   Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Working Group on
                                                                   Conventional Arms Exports, approved on 14Ð15
                                                                   November 1996, on the implementation of the common
Ð declare that interest at the rate of 8 % per annum, or           criteria on arms exports agreed by the European Council
    such other rate as the Court shall in its discretion           in 1991 and 1992.
    think fit, is payable to the applicant on the
    compensation due to him, covering the period from
    the date of delivery of the Court's judgment to the            In support of the form of order which it seeks the
    date of payment in full,                                       applicant submits that the contested refusal constitutes:
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð a misapplication of the exceptions laid down in
                                                                       Article 4(1) of the above mentioned Council Decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    First, the Council has refused access to the Report in
                                                                       its entirety, without any explanation why its disclosure
                                                                       could be harmful for the EU's relations with third
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 countries'. The mandatory and absolute terms in
Case T-146/97.                                                         which the Article 4(1) is drafted does not permit such
                                                                       an approach. Second, even should it appear that the
                                                                       disclosure of certain aspects of the Report might
                                                                       undermine the protection of the public interest, the
                                                                       applicant still submits that the Council has acted in
                                                                       breach of its duty to provide access to those parts of
                                                                       the document not covered by the exception. The
Action brought on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala,                    failure on the part of the defendant to examine in the
Member of the European Parliament against the Council                  present case the question whether the document
                   of the European Union                               should be released if certain parts were blanked out
                       (Case T-14/98)                                  constitutes further evidence of the Council's failure to
                                                                       give the applicant's request any careful consideration
                        (98/C 72/58)                                   and should in itself be regarded as constituting an
                                                                       infringement of Article 4(1),
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð a breach of the fundamental principle of the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                Community law that citizens of the European Union
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             should be granted the widest and fullest possible
Communities on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala, MEP,                  access to documents of the institutions of the Union,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and Thomas Janssens,                    and of the principle of the protection of legitimate
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       expectations,
 ---pagebreak--- C 72/28             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
Ð a breach of the obligation to state reasons, inasmuch              The complaint alleged conduct which amounted to serious
    as in the contested refusal the Council merely                   infringements of the rules on competition of the EC Treaty
    reproduced the text of Council Decision 97/731/EC,               committed during the construction of the building for the
    without relating it to a specific factual premise.               Council of the European Union in Brussels. The nature
                                                                     and effect of those infringements was to distort
                                                                     competition to the detriment of undertakings from other
                                                                     Member States and to dissuade in the long term non-
                                                                     Belgian undertakings from taking part in Belgian public
                                                                     procurement contracts. Essentially, that complaint was
Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Impregilo SpA and               directed against an agreement, arrangement or concerted
Others against the Commission of the European                        practice between a large number of the major Belgian
                        Communities                                  construction and public works undertakings which
                       (Case T-19/98)                                enabled them to penalise' the members of CDK, one of
                        (98/C 72/59)                                 which is an Italian undertaking and another German,
                                                                     which dared' to attempt to penetrate the Belgian
               (Language of the case: French)                        construction and public works market by submitting
                                                                     tenders for the construction of the Council's new
An action against the Commission of the European                     buildings.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January
1998 by Impregilo SpA, established in Milan (Italy),                 Such conduct was made possible largely by the action of
Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG (Dywidad), established in                    the Belgian State itself. By conferring on the EGC
Ascheim (Federal Republic of Germany) and Entreprises                consortium an economically and legally dominant position
Koeckelberg SA, established in Charleroi (Belgium),                  with respect to its competitor CDK, in particular by
represented by Chantal Bonnard, of the Paris Bar, with an            granting it excessive powers and an unprecedented
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 plurality of roles, the Belgian State infringed the
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'rue.                                            Community competition rules and created a situation
                                                                     which inevitably led to manifest, serious and repeated
The applicants claim that the Court should:                          abuses.
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 13 November
    1997 whereby the latter rejected the applicants'                 The Commission rejected that complaint by way of the
    requests that the infringements of Articles 5, 85, 86            contested decision.
    and 90 of the EC Treaty committed by Belgian
    construction undertakings and the Belgian State during           The applicants plead infringement of Articles 5, 85, 86
    the construction of the new Council of Ministers                 and 90 of the EC Treaty.
    building be penalised,
Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs incurred              By failing to carry out an investigation, despite all the
    by the applicants in the present action for annulment.           circumstantial and factual evidence in its possession
                                                                     pointing to the existence of a collective dominant position,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     the Commission has infringed Article 86 and failed to
The applicants, three construction undertakings, are                 fulfil its obligations with regard to the application of the
members of CDK', a consortium governed by Belgian                   competition rules.
law, set up in order to participate in the construction of
the new building complex intended to accommodate the                 The granting of exclusive and special powers to EGC by
Council's staff. EGC' is a consortium governed by Belgian           the Belgian State is a breach of the Belgian State's
law, under which are grouped the members of four                     obligations flowing from 90 of the EC Treaty.
consortia consisting mainly of Belgian contractors, formed
for the purpose of constructing the Council's buildings.
The members of the EGC are among the major                           Moreover, the contested decision is contrary to Article 85
construction companies in Belgium.                                   of the EC Treaty inasmuch as it considers that the setting
                                                                     up of EGC is not incompatible with that provision. The
On 28 February 1996 the members of CDK lodged a                      rejection of the complaint on the ground that the
complaint with the defendant against 16 Belgian                      applicants have not suffered any damage as a result of the
undertakings in the construction industry which form part            consortium with regard to some lots is likewise contrary
of the EGC consortium and against the Belgian State.                 to Article 85.