CELEX: C1996/318/28
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-124/96)

No C 318/ 14          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
Article 3(11 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , as referred to       effects on SGA's supplies, to the point where the company's
in Regulation ( EC ) No 1475/95 .                                     future is in jeopardy and it may very soon be forced to cease
                                                                      operations .
The company seeks annulment of the Commission 's
decision of 5 June 1996 not to investigate its complaint
criticizing in particular the directions given and the pressure
applied by the Peugeot ( PSA ) group to the Peugeot and
Citroen dealers in other Member States, in order to prevent
them from supplying vehicles to agents and to partition the           Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Interporc Im- und
market, contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome .                Export GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-124/96 )
SGA maintains, first, that by refusing to act on its complaint,
the Commission has committed a manifest error of
                                                                                                ( 96/C 318/28 )
assessment regarding the probative value of the evidence
produced . Furthermore, in earlier correspondence with                                (Language of the case: German)
SGA, the Commission had already acknowledged the
probative value of some of the documents furnished by the             An action against the Commission of the European
company .                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 9 August 1 996 by
                                                                      Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, Hamburg, represented by
According to SGA, the Commission also committed a                     Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address
manifest error of assessment with respect both to the alleged         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
lack of Community interest and to its own right to refuse to          of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8 rue Mathias Hardt .
call a halt to such a serious infringement as the partitioning
of the market. According to settled case-law, agreements
and practices designed to partition the market constitute             The applicant claims that the Court should :
infringements which are regarded as particularly serious .
Clauses, even if not in writing, for the elimination of exports       — annul the contested decision,
are equally unlawful , since their purpose is to prevent the
integration of the internal market, which is one of the               — declare that the Commission is not entitled to refuse
Treaty's fundamental objectives . It follows that, in the case            access to the documents specified in the letter of
of practices such as those described in the complaint, the                23 February 1996 from the applicant's representatives
Commission should have taken action .                                     to the Director General of DG VI,
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
SGA also argues that the Commission committed a manifest
error regarding its identification of the infringement's centre
of gravity and concerning the competence of the French                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
courts or authorities . According to the Commission , this
dispute's centre of gravity is in France, whereas it is really to     The applicant, one of the applicants in Case T-50/96 ,
be found in the Member States from which the re-export of             contests the Commission 's refusal to send it certain
vehicles by dealers in those States ought to respond to               documents concerning the decision of the Commission of
demand on the part of French consumers or agents; the                 26 January 1996 ('Hilton beef'), with which that action is
French manufacturer is endeavouring through its local                 concerned . The documents in question are the same as those
dealers to prevent those re-exports . The Commission is               in relation to which application has already been made in
therefore the authority competent to conduct an                       that other action for an order for their production by way of
investigation.                                                        a measure of organization of procedure .
                                                                      In the applicant's view, that refusal infringes both the code
SGA further argues that the Commission committed a                    of conduct for public access to documents of the Council
manifest error of assessment by refusing to adopt the interim         and of the Commission and Commission Decision 84/90/EC
measures sought in the complaint, the purpose of which was            of 8 February 1994 on public access to its documents . More
purely defensive and precautionary .                                  specifically, the defendant is not entitled, on the pretext of
                                                                      being required to apply a strict interpretation to the
                                                                      applicable provisions, to reduce the scope of the right to
As regards the action for damages , SGA points out that               access to its own documents to such an extent that that
when confronted with a file reporting, with supporting                fundamental right is rendered nugatory .
evidence, serious infringements whose damaging
consequences for the market, consumers and agents were                In the present case, in which the Commission is relying on its
undeniable, the Commission was obliged under Article 3 of             obligation to protect the public interest ( administration of
the Treaty and Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17 to               justice ), the defendant, as a public administrative authority
take measures to root out the cause of the damage . The               which is primarily required to act in the general interest,
Commission's refusal to act has had particularly detrimental          cannot apply a broad interpretation to that concept, since
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96         1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 318 / 15
otherwise the objectives which Decision 94/90/EC is                    The applicants submit that the prohibition laid down in
intended to achieve would not be attained . This is all the            Articles 2 ( b ) and 3 ( a ) of the Directive, in so far as they refer
more so in the present case, in which the non-production of            to the therapeutic use of beta-agonists in approved
the documents requested, which form the subject-matter of              veterinary medicinal products, will deprive them of their
an application for measures of organization of procedure in            right to manufacture and market the veterinary medicinal
another case, is contrary to the proper administration of              products in question for which they hold regular licences in
justice .                                                              conformity with applicable European rules . This
                                                                       interference with the applicants ' specific rights is not
In addition , the applicant asserts that there has been an             consistent with EC fundamental principles of law, such as
infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of               the principle of proportionality, the principles of legal
reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty .                     certainty and of legitimate expectations, and the principle of
                                                                       good administration .
                                                                       In this regard the applicants, while understanding the
                                                                       legitime interest of the Council and the Commission to
Action brought on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer Ingelheim                combat the illegal use of beta-agonists as bulk chemicals for
Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn Limited                       growing purposes, consider that a ban on the placing on the
  Partnership against the Council of the European Union                market of their veterinary medicinal products is not
                                                                       justified . Indeed, as a consequence of that ban :
                        ( Case T-125 /96
                          ( 96/C 318/29 )                              — animals are deprived of an essential product for the
                                                                            protection of their health ,
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       — the applicants are denied their legitimate right to
An action against the Council of the European Communities                   continue to market products which are praised by all
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       practitioners for their safety and quality .
European Communities on 9 August 1996 by Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                     Such effects cannot be justified by the aim pursued by the
Limited Partnership, represented by Messer Denis                       Council when adopting the contested measure .
Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard , of the Brussels Bar,
Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , 3                        Moreover, Article 43 of the EC Treaty has been violated, in
boulevard de l'Empereur, Brussels, with an address for                 so far as the European Parliament was consulted on a
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt &                       proposal which differed substantially from the text of
Medernach, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                    Directive 96/22/EC .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            (>) OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
— annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive
      96/22/EC of 29 April 1 996 ( 1 ), in so far as they prohibit
      the placing on the market of veterinary medicinal
      products containing beta-agonists for administering for
      therapeutic purposes to animals the flesh and products
      of which are intended for human consumption ,                     Action brought on 12 August 1996 by Breda Fucine
                                                                        Meridionali SpA against the Commission of the European
— condemn the Community, as represented here by the                                                  Communities
      Council, to repair the damage suffered by them as a                                         ( Case T-126/96 )
      result of the contested measure,
                                                                                                    ( 96/C 318/30 )
 — order the Council to bear the costs .
                                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 The applicants are the sole significant producers of                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
 medicines based on beta-agonists of the kind affected by               Instance of the European Communities on 12 August 1996
 Directive 96/22/EC . According to them, Directive 96/22/EC             by Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA, whose registered office is
 targets specifically their products, which must be seen as             at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
 having motivated the Community institutions in this                    Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for
 matter .
                                                                        service in Brussels at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, 36 ,
 The prohibition referred to in the contested Directive will , in       place du Grand Sablon .
 fact, prevent the administering of beta-agonists to treat
 respiratory disorders in food producing animals of any                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 species . The other common therapeutic use of beta-agonists ,
 i.e. inducing tocolysis in cows when calving, will continue to         — annul in whole or, in the alternative , in part ( as regards
 be authorized by the Directive .                                           the points referred to in this action ) the Commission's