CELEX: C1998/007/62
Language: en
Date: 1998-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 October 1997 by Guérin Automobiles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-275/97)

10. 1. 98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 7/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                arguments are essentially the same in both applications,
                                                                   whose purpose, even though they relate to two different
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those           administrative procedures, is to determine whether or not
relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).                                     the Commission is incorrect in not regarding consumers'
                                                                   associations as interested parties in an anti-dumping
                                                                   proceeding concerning products not commonly sold at
(1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
                                                                   retail level.
Action brought on 19 September 1997 by the European
                                                                   Action brought on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin
Office of Consumer Unions (BEUC) against the
                                                                   Automobiles against the Commission of the European
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                           Communities
                        (Case T-256/97)
                                                                                         (Case T-275/97)
                           (98/C 7/61)
                                                                                            (98/C 7/62)
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
                                                                   Instance on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin Automobiles,
1997 by the European Office of Consumer Unions
                                                                   represented      by    Xavier     LemeÂe,   court-appointed
(BEUC), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Member of
                                                                   administrator, instructing Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
the Law Society of Ireland, and assisted by Bonifacio
                                                                   Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Garcia Porras, member of the Colegio de Abogados de
                                                                   the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de
Salamanca, of O'Connor and Company, with an address
                                                                   Bourbon.
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of ArseÁne
Kronshagen, 2, rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                   should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission decision of 25 April 1997,
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission, addressed
     to the applicant and set out in the letter of 18 July         Ð formally take note that Mr LemeÂe reserves the right to
     1997 (see Annex I), refusing to regard the applicant as           bring an action for compensation pursuant to
     an interested party' in relation to all aspects of an            Article 215 of the Treaty,
     anti-dumping proceeding, opened by the Commission
     on the 11 July 1997, concerning imports of                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
     unbleached cotton fabrics, originating in the People's
     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan
     and Turkey, and refusing the applicant's request for          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     transmission of the complaint and for access to the
     non-confidential files and information made available         The applicant contests the definitive rejection of the
     by all parties in that proceeding,                            complaint which it lodged against the company Nissan
                                                                   France on the basis of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the            Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 (1) concerning
     EC Treaty, the decision contained in the same letter, in      the imposition by that company of concession conditions
     so far as that decision refuses to allow the applicant        which the applicant considers incompatible with that
     and other consumer organizations to have access to            Regulation.
     the non-confidential information made available in an
     anti-dumping proceeding dealing with products not             The applicant states that, in its letter rejecting the
     commonly sold at retail level,                                complaint, the defendant relies essentially on the more
                                                                   protective provisions of the new Regulation, Regulation
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           (EC) No 1475/95 (2), which requires Nissan, in its
                                                                   relations with its concessionaires, to make changes as
                                                                   regards the future both to the contract at issue and in its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                conduct, eliminating any infringements relating to the
                                                                   past'. The applicant emphasizes in that regard that its
The applicant in the present case is the same                      interest relates only to a situation prior to the entry into
representative consumers' organization as in Case T-84/97          force of that Regulation and that the Commission was
BEUC v. Commission. The pleas in law and main                      asked to deal only with that situation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/22                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10. 1. 98
In support of the forms of order which it seeks, the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant relies on the following pleas in law:
                                                                       The applicant contests the definitive rejection of the
Ð breach of essential procedural requirements in that, in              complaint which it lodged against the company Volvo
     the contested decision, the Commission gives no                   France on the basis of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
     reasons for its failure to take action regarding the              Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 (1) concerning
     infringements ante-dating the entry into force of                 the imposition by that company of concession conditions
     Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, which were reported to                which the applicant considers incompatible with that
     it,                                                               Regulation.
Ð infringement of the Treaty, in that the defendant                    The contentions and principal arguments adduced in
     manifestly erred in its appraisal of the facts,                   support are the same as those in Case T-275/95 GueÂrin
                                                                       Automobiles v. Commission (2).
Ð misuse of powers, in that, in repeating in its analysis
     the arguments put forward by Nissan France, the                   (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
                                                                           1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to
     defendant's intention was to grant an amnesty. Also,                  certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
     the defendant's attitude runs directly counter to the                 agreements (OJ L 15, 18. 1. 1985, p. 16).
     Community interest as a result of its refusal to ensure           (2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
     the real effectiveness of Community competition law.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
    1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to
    certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
    agreements (OJ L 15, 18. 1. 1985, p. 16).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on           Action brought on 20 October 1997 by Ismeri Europa Srl
    the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain         against the Court of Auditors of the European
    categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing                                       Communities
    agreements (OJ L 145, 29. 6. 1995, p. 25).
                                                                                                (Case T-277/97)
                                                                                                  (98/C 7/64)
                                                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin                           An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Automobiles against Commission of the European                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                           Communities                                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 October
                         (Case T-276/97)                               1997 by Ismeri Europa Srl, represented by Sergio
                                                                       Ristuccia and Gian Luigi Tosato, of the Rome Bar, with
                            (98/C 7/63)
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Alex Schmitt, 7, val Ste Croix.
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       (a) declare the Court of Auditors to be liable in damages
Instance on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin Automobiles,
                                                                             and order it to:
represented       by     Xavier     LemeÂe,      court-appointed
administrator, instructing Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      Ð pay an amount which the Court may deem
the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de                               appropriate to make good the damage suffered by
Bourbon.                                                                          the applicant in respect of its reputation,
                                                                             Ð pay ECU 943 725 by way of reparation for
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                             material damage suffered as a result of the
should:                                                                           termination of a number of contracts,
Ð annul the Commission decision of 25 April 1997,                            Ð pay an amount to be determined by way of legal
                                                                                  proceedings or which the Court may deem fair
                                                                                  and equitable in order to make good loss of
Ð formally take note that Mr LemeÂe reserves the right to                         earnings,
     bring an action for compensation pursuant to
     Article 215 of the Treaty,
                                                                             Ð pay interest at the legal rate taking currency
                                                                                  fluctuations into account in respect of each of the
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                          above heads of claim,