CELEX: C1995/229/48
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 June 1995 by Nicolaos Progoulis against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-131/95)

2 . 9 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/21
Action brought on 8 June 1995 by Neue Maxhütte                         Action brought on 19 June 1995 by Nicolaos Progoulis
Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH against the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
          Commission of the European Communities                                              ( Case T-131/95 )
                         ( Case T-129/95 )                                                      ( 95/C 229/48 )
                           ( 95/C 229/47
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European                       Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1995 by
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Nicolaos Progoulis, residing in Brussels, represented, by
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June                         Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
1995 by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
Rosenberg ( FRG ), and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH,                           Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Meitingen-Herbertshofen ( FRG), represented by Dr Rainer
M. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger,              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Elvinger &; Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich .
                                                                       — annual the decision of the defendant, addressed to the
                                                                           applicant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
The applicants claim that the Court should :                               application for regrading in grade Bl , step 2, -with
                                                                           retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 , and for payment
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 4 April 1995                 of the sum due in consequence of the regrading applied
     in so far as it concerns the applicants;                              for, calculated retroactively from 1 March 1983 ,
                                                                           together with compound interest thereon at the annual
                                                                           rate of 10 % ,
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The application concerns the Commission's decision of
4 April 1995 addressed to the Federal German Government                The applicant states that he was appointed an official of the
in which it prohibited the Federal State of Bavaria's planned          defendant institution by decision of 9 March 1983 , in grade
contributions to compensation for accumulated losses and               B3 , step 2 . On the following day, he submitted an
in respect of certain investments on the ground that they              application for a review of his classification. He
were State aids which were incompatible with the ECSC                  subsequently lodged a complaint against the decision
Treaty and the Steel Aids Code .                                       rejecting that application, maintaining that the
                                                                       administration had failed to take into acount his period of
The applicants complain that there was an incorrect                    compulsory military service ( 27 months ). In consequence of
statement of the reasons on which the decision was based               that complaint, the defendant reclassified the applicant in
and a breach of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty. The decision            grade B3 , step 3 .
is based on an erroneous representation and evaluation of
the facts .                                                            On 5 December 1991 , the applicant submitted an
                                                                       application for a review of his classification, on the ground
                                                                       that the professional experience gained by him prior to his
The applicants complain that there was an infringement of              entry into service (the administration had acknowledged
both the applicants ' and the Federal Government's right to            him as having 12 years and nine months' experience ), taken
be heard .
                                                                       together with his period of military service ( 27 months ), was
                                                                       greater ( 15 years ) than that required, according to the
The applicants also claim that the decision incorrectly                wording of the decision of 6 June 1973 on the criteria
applied Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty because the planned         applicable to appointment in grade and step on recruitment
payments were in reality not aids . The Commission                     for appointment in grade Bl ( 14 years ). In support of his
misconstrued the notion of aid and incorrectly appraised the           application, the applicant relied on the case of another
Federal State of Bavaria's business conduct. Furthermore,              official whom the defendant had reclassified in a different
the     contested    decision     infringes  the    principle  of      career bracket with retroactive effect from the date of his
proportionality, fails to recognize that in view of the                 appointment. That application was rejected .
applicants' weak market position there is no effect on
competition in the common market, and prevents the                      On 6 May 1994, the applicant submitted a fresh application
 planned privatization measures in an anti-competitive                  for regrading in consequence of the judgment delivered by
 manner .                                                               the Court of First Instance on 29 September 1993 in Joined
                                                                        Cases T-103/92 , T-104/92 snd T-105/92 . That application
                                                                        was rejected by the defendant, who considered that that
                                                                        judgment was not applicable in the applicant's case.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
The applicant maintains that the defendant has committed              On 23 November 1994 , the applicant, pursuant to Article
several manifest errors of assessment of the law and of his           175 , called on the Commission to act by adopting a
personal situation, by regarding him as not entitled to               definitive position on the complaint in so far as concerned
regrading in a different career bracket despite having                Article 85 .
allowed another official to change to a different career
bracket. Moreover, he considers that insufficient reasons
were given for the contested decision, in particular as               On 15 February 1995 , not having received any decision
regards the reasons for the non-application of the principles         from the Commission, the applicant, pursuant to Article
laid down by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           175 , lodged with the Court of First Instance an application
29 September 1993 . Lastly, the applicant states that, by             against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ).
reason of the administrative practice followed by the                 On 17 February 1995 the Commission adopted Decision
defendant in relation to him, it has prejudiced his interests,        SG/95 ) D/1790, rejecting the complaint as regards Article 85
particularly as regards the development of his career and of          of the EC Treaty . The applicant challenged that decision by
his pension rights .                                                  application lodged with the Court of First Instance pursuant
                                                                      to Article 173 ( Case T-l 10/95 ). Finally, on 6 April 1995 , the
                                                                      Commission adopted Decision SG(95 ) D/4438 , rejecting the
                                                                      second part of the aforementioned complaint of abuse of a
                                                                      dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 by the
                                                                      interception of mail on the basis of Article 25 of the UPU
                                                                      Convention . The latter is the decision contested in the
Action brought on 20 June 1995 by International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the Commission of the             present case .
                     European Communities
                          Case T-133 /95 )                            The applicant submits that the contested decision should be
                           ( 95/C 229/49 )                            annulled for the following reasons :
                 (Language of the case: English)                      — Breach of Article 190 of the Treaty in that the
                                                                          Commission fails to state reasons in its decision
An action against the Commission of the European                          regarding the interception of 'ABC remail' and the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         application of Article 85 to the market allocation scheme
Instance of the European Communities on 20 June 1995 by                   implemented on the basis of Article 25 of the UPU
International Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ),                       Convention .
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                 — Breach of Article 3(2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 in so far as
L-1650 .                                                                  the Commission incorrectly considered that the
                                                                          applicant's members had no legitimate interest as
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               regards 'non-physical' remail .
— annul Commission Decision No SG(95)D/4438 of
                                                                      — Breach of EC competition rules in that the Commission
       6 April 1995 ( Case No IV/32.791 — Remail ),
                                                                           failed to condemn ( i ) the interception and the agreement
— order such further or other relief as the Court considers               to intercept commercial 'physical ABA remail' by the
                                                                           post offices, ( ii) the post offices' efforts to restrict
       appropriate in order for the Commission to comply with
       Article 176 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                           development of 'ABC remail' by relying on the authority
                                                                           or purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .                                 Convention, and ( iii ) the post offices' use of the UPU
                                                                           Convention to restrict 'non-physical remail'.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Misuse of powers in that the Commission's main
 The applicant, a professional organization composed of                    purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to achieve
 certain important private express companies, filed with the               political objectives .
 Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under Article 3
 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the infringement ( i )
 of Article 85 (1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain European public        — Breach of certain principles of Community law in
 postal operators, and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the EC Treaty by            that, in adopting the decision, the Commission
 two post offices which relied upon a market allocation                    violated the principles of legal certainty and of the
 scheme set out in the Universal Postal Convention ( UPU                   protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
 Convention ). The behaviour in question of the post offices               non-discrimination and the principle of sound
 named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                   administration .
 or restraining 'remail' competition, a practice whereby a
 mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts
 the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
 post office located in another country .