CELEX: C2000/020/45
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-232/99: Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Margaret Mary McKenzie Campbell against the Commission of the European Communities

C 20/22                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
The application is made on the following grounds:                       the Middle Temple, by Messrs Ferdinard Kelly, 21 Bennets Hill,
                                                                        Birmingham, B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
— The Commission, having resigned en masse, is only author-
    ised to handle current business, which does not include
    the Decision;                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— The Decision was adopted under Regulation No 17 and
    should have been adopted (if adopted at all) under                  — annul the decision of the Commission in Case
    Regulation No 3975/87. This breach of an essential pro-                 IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle dated 16 June
    cedural requirement deprived BA of the procedural safe-                 1999;
    guards to which it was entitled. Moreover, in so far as the
    Decision affects routes between the United Kingdom and              — declare that the Commission is required under Article 233
    third countries, it is outside the powers of the Commission;            of the Treaty establishing the European Communities to
                                                                            take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment
— The Commission acted against BA alone, whereas all                        to be delivered;
    the European Airlines engaged in substantially similar
    practices;
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.
— The requisite nexus between the alleged market in which
    the Commission maintains that the abuse has occurred
    and the markets in which the Commission maintains that
    the harmful effects of such abuse are felt is lacking and           Pleas in law and main arguments
    therefore Article 82 cannot apply;
— The market in air travel agency services cannot be regarded           The applicant states that on 13 January 1998, pursuant to
    as the relevant product market in the present case. BA              Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62 the Commission gave
    submits that the appropriate market definition is the route         notice (1) that it intended to take a favourable position in
    or set of routes distributed through the travel agent.              respect of certain agreements notified to the Commission by
    Furthermore, the relevant geographic market is not, as the          Scottish and Newcastle PLC, by granting retroactive exemption
    Commission maintains, the UK, but is broader;                       pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. The agreements in question were
                                                                        the standard forms of leases, the subject of each of the leases
— Even if the relevant market is correctly identified, BA               being a fully fitted-out, on-licensed public house in United
    cannot been considered as being dominant in the market,             Kingdom with a tie for beer. Before taking a final decision on
    because it cannot act independently of its suppliers,               this matter, the Commission invited all interested parties to
    competitors or customers;                                           submit their observations.
— Even if BA were dominant in a properly-defined relevant
    market, its incentive agreements would not constitute an            On 12 March 1999, the applicant submitted observations
    abuse of its dominant position.                                     together with an expert’s report to the Commission. By the
                                                                        said observations objection was made to the proposal to grant
                                                                        Scottish and Newcastle retroactive or any exemption.
                                                                        On 16 June 1999, the Commission took a Decision relating to
                                                                        a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                        IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle) (the contested
                                                                        decision) (2). In its decision the Commission, overriding the
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Margaret Mary                      objections made in the said observations, granted Scottish and
McKenzie Campbell against the Commission of the Euro-                   Newcastle retroactive exemption to the notified agreements
                       pean Communities                                 commencing on 1 January 1985 until 31 December 2002.
                         (Case T-232/99)
                                                                        The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance on
                                                                        the grounds that in granting exemption to the notified
                          (2000/C 20/45)                                agreements the Commission:
                  (Language of the case: English)                       (a) failed properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish
                                                                            that the notified agreements do not fulfil the conditions of
                                                                            Article 81(3);
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Margaret                     (b) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision that the
Mary McKenzie Campbell, represented by Becket Bedford, of                   notified agreements fulfil the conditions of Article 81(3);
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/23
(c) failed to properly evaluate the facts and law which establish        Action brought on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
    that the notified agreements do not satisfy the conditions           V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V. against the
    of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 17.                                          Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 8, p. 4.                                                                                (Case T-237/99)
(2) OJ L 186, p. 28.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 20/47)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Monod-                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Gayraud against the Commission of the European Com-                      European Communities on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
                            munities                                     V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V., respectively estab-
                                                                         lished in Rotterdam, Alphen a/d Rijn and Amsterdam (Nether-
                                                                         lands), represented by Mr van Empel and Mr Smeets, of the
                        (Case T-234/99)
                                                                         Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                         (2000/C 20/46)
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                                                                              of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Germany and requiring the repayment of State aid granted
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Mo-                        by the Netherlands to 450 service stations;
nod-Gayraud, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by
Hélène Masse-Dessen, of the Paris Bar, and Viviane Ecker, of the         (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Luxembourg Bar, 77 Boulevard Grande Duchesse Charlotte.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing the benefit of                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
    free accommodation;                                                  T-248/99.
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages
    amounting to EUR 91 200;                                             (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action concerns the defendant’s refusal, dated 29 June               Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Esso Nederland
1999, to accept responsibility for payment of the rent for               B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
accommodation used by the applicant, a French civil servant                                             ties
on secondment as an expert to the Commission’s delegation
in Poland.
                                                                                                 (Case T-242/99)
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the
fact that that decision is contrary to the undertakings pre-                                      (2000/C 20/48)
viously given by the Commission in relation to him.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
He adds that it is not possible to raise against him the argument
that the rent for accommodation cannot be reimbursed to an
official where, as in his case, the accommodation belongs to             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the official’s spouse. He never in fact chose to live in an              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
apartment belonging to his wife; that situation arose as a result        European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Esso Neder-
of the attitude adopted by the Commission.                               land B.V., of The Hague (Netherlands), represented by M.H. van
                                                                         der Woude and R.W. Wezenbeek-Geuke, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         J. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.