CELEX: C1998/378/45
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-169/98)

5.12.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/25
Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Luc Verheyden                the course of, the performance by the applicant of his
  against the Commission of the European Communities              duties and, second, that the damage suffered did not
                      (Case T-167/98)                             result, either wholly or in part, from any fault or
                                                                  negligence whatever on the applicant's part.
                       (98/C 378/44)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October                  against the Commission of the European Communities
1998 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera (Italy),
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an                              (Case T-169/98)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                     (98/C 378/45)
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                                 (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the refusal by the Financial Controller, Mr               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Hartkamp, to sanction the payment of reimbursement            Instance of the European Communities on 16 October
    for the loss of two pairs of trousers belonging to the        1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
    applicant and having a total value of ITL 370 000, the        at Beuvillers (France), representd by Pascal Barbier, of the
    said refusal, dated 27 November 1997 having been              Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    communicated to the applicant by a note of                    at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich
    19 February 1998 signed by G. Brugnoni (ref. PO 2-A/          Heine.
    No 068/98);
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the decision implicitly rejecting the complaint
    submitted by the applicant on 4 March 1998, which             Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    was registered as having been received on 10 March                Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is
    1998;                                                             to promote unfair competition to the disadvantage of
                                                                      existing regular services, in particular, those provided
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation for the                     by Schiocchet SARL;
    material damage suffered in the sum of ITL 370 000
    together with interest from 23 July 1997, the date of         Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
    the accident;                                                     Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
                                                                      19 August 1998.
Ð order the defendant to pay the sum of ITL 5 000 000
    by way of compensation for the non-material damage            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    suffered by the applicant;
                                                                  The applicant, a company incorporated under French law,
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs in any                has since 1990 been operating regular international
    event.                                                        services between France and Luxembourg, having been
                                                                  authorised by the competent French authorities so to do.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  On 4 December 1996 the applicant submitted to the
The applicant suffered damage to his clothing in the              Commission a complaint concerning, first, unlawful
course of carrying out the work entrusted to him. Two             conduct on the part of SocieÂteÂ Mousset, a competitor
new pairs of trousers (each pair having a value of ITL            which had started to operate a cross-border service
185 000) were successively damaged, without any lack of           without authorisation, and, second, the development since
care or fault whatever on the applicant's part.                   1990 of anti-competitive practices as a result of the
                                                                  application of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/
According to the applicant, the present case does not             92. It requested the Commission, pursuant to the Treaty,
involve normal wear and tear to the trousers; instead, it         to intervene in order to ensure, first, that Community law,
concerns an accident connected with the normal                    in particular Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, was complied
performance of his duties. He pleads infringement of              with and, second, that infringements of competition rules
Articles 71 and 73 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the        of the type contained in Council Regulation (EEC)
duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of              No 1017/68 were identified and dealt with.
officials and breach of general principles of law, such as
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations        By letter of 19 August 1998, the Commission informed,
and of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant            inter alia, the applicant that it did not regard it as
claims that the defendant wrongly refused, in breach of           appropriate to apply the safeguard clause contained in
the rules and principles referred to in his plea, to              paragraph 1.3 of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 684/
compensate him for the damage suffered by him as a                92, inasmuch as that clause cannot be applied between
result of an accident at work, since it is apparent, first,       regular services and special regular services. To apply the
that the accident indeed occurred on the occasion of, or in       safeguard clause in that way would be tantamount to
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
limiting the effects of the liberalisation of special regular           promote unfair competition with regard to existing
services which was introduced by that regulation.                       regular services, and, in particular, to the disadvantage
Consequently, according to the Commission, the French                   of those provided by Schiocchet SARL;
State has not breached Community law.
                                                                    Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
The applicant maintains that the exemption provision laid
                                                                        Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is
                                                                        19 August 1998.
unlawful, inasmuch as that provision is itself incompatible
with the Treaty and, in particular, with Article 75(1)(a) of
the Treaty of Rome. In the present case, the exemption              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
provision at issue has enabled SocieÂteÂ Mousset, since the
entry into force of Article 4(2) of the regulation in               The present case concerns allegedly unlawful conduct on
question, to continue to compete with the existing regular          the part of the company known as Taxi Gaby Colarelli, a
service provided by the applicant, which was established            competitor of the applicant.
prior to that regulation, and has the effect of distorting
competition in the common market.                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                                                                    those relied on by the applicant in Case T-169/98
According to the applicant, the Commission wrongly                  Schiocchet v. Commission.
considered SocieÂteÂ Mousset to have been exempt from the
authorisation requirement since the entry into force of
Regulation (EEC) No 684/92. In addition, the
Commission erred in law in considering that paragraph
1.3 of Article 2 of that regulation was not intended to
restrict the scope of Article 4(2) thereof.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-159/97 (1)
The Commission has also engaged in unlawful                                                  (98/C 378/47)
discrimination, inasmuch as it applied different treatment
to comparable situations, thereby placing the applicant at                         (Language of the case: French)
a disadvantage by comparison with other providers of
regular services. That difference in treatment was not              By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
justified by the existence of any other objectives to which         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
any weight attaches.                                                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca FerraÄo v.
                                                                    Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market
                                                                    (trade marks and designs).
Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL                (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-170/98)
                        (98/C 378/46)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-297/97 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European                                             (98/C 378/48)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                                 (Language of the case: English)
1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
at Beuvillers (France), represented by Pascal Barbier, of the       By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Heine.                                                              Case T-297/97: David T. Keeling v. Office for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Harmonisation of the Internal Market (trade marks and
                                                                    designs).
Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    Regulation No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is to              (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.