CELEX: C1996/318/27
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 August 1996 by Service pour le groupement d'acquisitions (SGA) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-123/96)

26 . 10 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 318 / 13
    on the market and administration of BST ('the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    moratorium') and breach of the principle of
     proportionality .                                                On 1 December 1995 the Commission adopted Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2781 /95 on the transport for the free supply to
    The latest renewal of the moratorium on BST expressly             Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan of rye
     permits Member States to 'carry out limited practical            flour .
     tests on the use of bovine somatotrophin'. Furthermore,
     the moratorium nowhere prohibits the placing on the              The transport of one of the lots was awarded to the
     market of products obtained from tested animals . It is          applicant. Annexed to the award was a schedule of 10 points
     solely concerned with BST and not with the sale of               containing extracts from the agreement between the
     foodstuffs obtained from treated animals . It appears de         European Community and the Georgian authorities . After
     facto disproportionate to inhibit the ability of academic        delivery the Commission sent to the applicant a statement of
     institutions to obtain free access, for the purpose of           account which concerned, inter alia, costs of dispatch to be
     clinical trials, to a product whose use in animals is            paid to the Georgian authorities . The applicant objects that
     recognized scientifically as harmless to humans, and to          no reference is made anywhere to the dispatch rate, not even
     require healthy animals to be sacrificed in such a               in the award and in the memorandum concerning the
     situation .                                                      abovementioned agreement. The applicant therefore
                                                                      considers that the costs of dispatch do not have to be paid to
— Infringement of the Final Act embodying the results                 the Georgian authorities and protests against a number of
     of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade                       decisions in which those costs are stated to be for its
     Negotiations .                                                   account .
     In the applicant's view, the Commission's decision
     refusing to proceed with the inclusion of BST in Annex II
     to the Regulation may seriously affect non-EC producers
     who request an authorization to place on the market
     foodstuffs from animals treated with BST.
                                                                      Action brought on 8 August 1996 by Service pour le
                                                                      groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ) against the Commission
                                                                                      of the European Communities
                                                                                             ( Case T-123 /96 )
                                                                                               ( 96/C 318 /27 )
Action brought on 2 August 1996 by Mutual Aid
Administration Services NV against the Commission of the                              (Language of the case: French)
                     European Communities
                        ( Case T-121 /96 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                          ( 96/C 318/26 )                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1 996 by
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Service pour le groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ),
                                                                      established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                                                                      Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Beatrix de Bourbon .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1 996 by
Mutual Aid Administration Services NV, of Antwerp
( Belgium ), represented by J. Tritsmans, of the Antwerp Bar,         The applicant claims that the Court should :
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of R. Faltz, 6 rue Heinrich Heine .                                   — annul the Commission 's decision notified to SGA on
                                                                          5 Tune 1996 not to investigate the complaint lodged on
                                                                          4 July 1994 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare, in accordance with Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
— annul the contested decision(s ), a copy of which is                    that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
     included in the documents annexed to the application,
                                                                          liability and caused SGA damage which must be made
     and consequently hold that the applicant is not obliged
                                                                          good, and, as a consequence, award SGA the sum of
     to pay the costs of dispatch to the Georgian
                                                                           ECU 360 000 by way of compensation,
     authorities,
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     proceed to repay to the applicant the sum of US$
     21 967,19 together with interest, calculated at the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     current statutory rate in Belgium of 8 % per annum,
      since 30 July 1996 ,                                             SGA operates as an intermediary in the distribution of all
                                                                       makes of automobiles, undertaking parallel imports solely
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              as agent for the final consumer, in accordance with
 ---pagebreak--- 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