CELEX: C2000/135/38
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-45/00: Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Conseil National des Professions de l'Automobile (C.N.P.A.) and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

C 135/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         — Inadmissible use of the ‘sharing-key’ paper
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)             The applicant maintains that the use of evidence supplied
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               anonymously is generally inadmissible.
                                                                        — Inadequate statement of reasons
                                                                            The explanations in ground 68 of the contested decision,
                                                                            in particular, concerning proof of active protection of the
                                                                            home market, were contradictory and, in themselves,
                                                                            inconclusive.
Action brought on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke AG against the Commission of the                       — Erroneous application of Article 81(1) EC to the agreement
                    European Communities                                    with British Steel
                         (Case T-44/00)                                     This agreement was negotiated individually and contained
                                                                            no exclusive supply agreement or horizontal concertation.
                                                                            The chosen percentage link to British Steel’s total require-
                        (2000/C 135/37)
                                                                            ments and the agreed price formula were legally unobjec-
                                                                            tionable.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        — Erroneous application of the guidelines for the procedure
                                                                            in determining fines
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  The determination of the fine contained an error of
European Communities on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-                         assessment, since it did not take sufficient account of the
mannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office is in Mülheim                  varying market significance of the undertakings concerned.
an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by Martin Klusmann,                      In addition, further extenuating grounds and the appli-
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                    cant’s contribution to elucidating the matter were not
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmidt, 7 Val Ste                     appropriately evaluated.
Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision K(99) 4154 endg. of
    8 December 1999, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant          Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Conseil
    by that decision by an appropriate amount;                          National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.) and
                                                                        Others against the Commission of the European Com-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                             munities
                                                                                                  (Case T-45/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/38)
The applicant is a producer of seamless steel tubes. In the
contested decision, the Commission finds infringement of
Article 81(1) EC by the applicant and several other undertak-
ings. The action is based on the following grounds in particular:                           (Language of the case: French)
— Infringement of procedural rights                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    Certain parts of the investigation file were withheld from          European Communities on 29 February 2000, by the Conseil
    the applicant, contrary to the provisions on access to              National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.), whose
    Commission documents.                                               registered office is in Suresnes, France, the Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériels de
— Infringement of rights of the defence                                 Bâtiment-Travaux Publics et de Manutention (D.L.R.), whose
                                                                        registered office is in Joinville-Le-Pont, France, Auto Contrôle
    Because of the short deadlines for replying to the heads of         31 and Yam 31 SARL, whose registered office is in Toulouse,
    complaint, the applicant did not have sufficient oppor-             France, Marc Foucher-Créteau, resident in Paris, and Verdier
    tunity to defend itself. Moreover, the in its final decision,       Distribition SARL, whose registered office is in Juvignac,
    the Commission diverged from essential accusations in the           France, represented by Christian Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar,
    heads of complaint without giving the applicant the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    opportunity to amend its position.                                  François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— declare that the Commission infringed essential procedural
     requirements in the consultation process;                                                   (Case T-46/00)
— find that EEC Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December                                            (2000/C 135/39)
     1999 does not mention abuse of economic dependance as
     one of the restrictions on competition set out in Article 4,
     even in the event of cumulative effect;                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
— annul Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December 1999;                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                European Communities on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen,
                                                                        a company incorporated under Norwegian law, having its
                                                                        registered office in Norway, represented by K. Storalm, of the
                                                                        Stavanger (Norway) Bar, J.P. Hoekstra, of the Amsterdam
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (Netherlands) Bar, and G. Vanquathem, of the Bar of Knokke-
                                                                        Heist (Belgium), with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of M. Michel, 48 Avenue de la Gare.
The applicants challenge Regulation EC No 2790/99 of
22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices (1). This is a block exemption regulation in that it is
intended to cover all forms of ‘vertical’ practice in all sectors       — declare the action to be admissible and well founded;
of the economy. It is also intended to cover exclusive and
selective car distribution if the regulation currently in force in      — consequently,           annul       Commission         Decision
the car sector is not renewed when it expires.                              SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999;
                                                                        — make the appropriate order as to costs.
In support of their application, the applicants argue, inter alia,
that the consultations leading up to adoption of the regulation
were not carried out in a manner consistent with the spirit of
the Treaty, and more specifically Article 83(1), which requires         Pleas in law and main arguments
a minimum level of transparency when dealing with objections
and a minimum degree of explanation as to why they are
dismissed. In general, the true impact of the modernisation             The Netherlands authorities brought proceedings against the
programme on competition in terms of the fate of small and              vessel M600 (the property of the applicant) on the ground that
medium-sized enterprises and their significantly increased              it was using illegal nets and deliberately fishing for sole.
economic dependance was passed over silently and hidden
from the decision-making and consultative bodies to whom
that very information was indispensable.                                The applicant contends that the Netherlands authorities are
                                                                        doing all within their power to keep certain Norwegian fishing
                                                                        vessels out of Community waters and thereby to create
The applicants further state that the renewal of the contested          additional fishing opportunities for, in particular, vessels flying
regulation was presented as merely being a procedural matter            the Dutch flag. The applicant claims that the Netherlands
which did not justify or effect any amendment to the Treaty.            authorities have been pressurising the Commission to with-
However, in the view of the applicants, the regulation in               draw the fishing licences for the aforementioned Norwegian
question changes the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. It       vessels.
calls into question certain issues which were already settled,
in particular as regards the retrospective consequences of
                                                                        The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
automatic invalidity which remains the formal position under
                                                                        SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999 withdrawing the fish-
Article 81(2) and the principle of prohibition which also
remains the formal position under Article 81(1).                        ing licence and special fishing permit of the fishing vessel
                                                                        ‘Kvitsjoen’ and providing that no fishing licence or special
                                                                        fishing permit may be issued to it before 30 June 2000.
(1) OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21.
                                                                        Relations between the European Communities and Norway
                                                                        are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 50/1999 of
                                                                        18 December 1998 laying down, for 1999, certain measures
                                                                        for the conservation and management of fishery resources
                                                                        applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway.