CELEX: C2001/108/44
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-19/01: Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

7.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/23
Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Regulation (EC)           In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
                              No 40/94 on the Community                 he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
                              trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe-        certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
                              ment of the EC Treaty (Articles           Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
                              28 and 29 EC) — No similarity             particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
                              between the conflicting trade             that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
                              marks — Impermissible splitting-          by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
                              up of the mark into its individual        constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
                              component parts — Failure to              EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
                              have regard to the case-law of the        the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
                              Court of Justice concerning the           practising at that Bar.
                              overall impression given by a
                              mark — Right of a competitor in
                              the market to combine the name            By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
                              of its main products with its com-        applicant’s complaint.
                              pany name — Change in the legal
                              position since registration of the
                              opposing mark.
                                                                        In the present case, the applicant submits inter alia that the
                                                                        Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
                                                                        examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
                                                                        assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
                                                                        essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
                                                                        86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
                                                                        the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
                                                                        and effects of the legal framework at Community level
                                                                        regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-                      89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                         (Case T-18/01)
                        (2001/C 108/43)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony                      Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of                                   European Communities
Merriman White, London (UK).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case T-19/01)
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
      2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu-                                        (2001/C 108/44)
      lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
      of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
      Bar of England and Wales
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
                                                                        Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course,            Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales            and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
and the practice of law as a barrister.                                 (UK).
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/24                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.4.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Furthermore, the applicants allege that the measures intro-
                                                                        duced via the regulation violate the limits of the Commission’s
                                                                        implementing powers as to the WTO-compatibility of the
—      Order the defendant to pay damages pursuant to Article           licensing regime and the division into ‘country allocations’,
       288 EC for the losses suffered by it through the unlawful        and that the Commission has acted in breach of its clear
       measures introduced by Commission Regulation                     mandate from the Council.
       2362/98 (1), all sums to be increased with compensatory
       interest at a rate of 8 % to be applied from the day on
       which the damage materialised.                                   Finally, the applicants contend that the measures introduced
                                                                        by Regulation No 2362/98 infringe the principle of non-
                                                                        discrimination, the freedom to pursue trade or business as well
                                                                        as the principle of good faith in international law and the
—      Order the defendant to pay legal interest on such sums as
                                                                        legitimate expectations traders can derive from that.
       are found to be due at a rate of 8 %
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings        (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
                                                                            laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
                                                                            the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                        (2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        (3) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 28.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants operate their business in the EC as a single
economic entity, and the core of the their operations is the
marketing, distribution and sourcing of bananas.
As the factual and legal background for their claims, the               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli
applicants have indicated that in 1993 the EC ‘banana                   and 5 other employees of the European Central Bank
regime’ was introduced through Council Regulation 404/93 (2).                         against the European Central Bank
Following a dispute settlement procedure in the WTO finding
aspects of this regime to be WTO-incompatible, the EC agreed                                      (Case T-20/01)
to make its banana regime compatible by 1 January 1999.
This was purportedly done by Council Regulation No
1637/98 (3) and Commission Regulation No 2362/98. How-                                           (2001/C 108/45)
ever, the EC’s amended banana regime was also found to be
WTO-incompatible in two supplemental WTO rulings issued
in April 1999 which related inter alia to the system for                                   (Language of the case: German)
distribution of import licences and the division of a yearly
tariff rate quota of 2 553 000 tonnes opened for imports from
Latin America into ‘country allocations’. In spite of those             An action against the European Central Bank was brought
rulings, these allegedly unlawful measures remain in force.             before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli and 5 other
                                                                        employees of the European Central Bank, represented by
                                                                        Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsan-
The applicants state that as a result of the discriminatory             wälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
distribution of licences as introduced by Regulation No
2362/98, they have suffered a loss of market share and have
been forced to buy or lease the use of import licences and to           The applicants claim that the Court should:
accept unfavourable contract conditions. The applicants claim
to have sustained substantial damage and losses caused by the           (1) annul the rule laid down in Article 8.1.0 of the provisional
defendant’s breach of law, and under Articles 235 and 288 EC                  Staff Rules, as brought into force by the European Central
they claim compensation for a continuing loss of profit and                   Bank with effect from 16 August 2000, and the rule laid
for non-recurring costs which would not have been incurred                    down in Article 7.2.0 of the provisional Staff Rules, as
had the measures in the regulation not been introduced.                       brought into force with effect from 26 September 2000,
                                                                              alternatively annul those rules as regards the relationship
                                                                              between the defendant and the applicants;
The applicants submit that Regulation No 2362/98 is unlawful
in that it infringes superior rules of law, i.e. WTO rules              (2) annul Administrative Circular 01/2000 concerning the
and obligations, as well as the fundamental policy of the                     Rules for Business Travel, alternatively annul Administrat-
Community to amend the banana regime in order to make it                      ive Circular 01/2000 as between the defendant and the
WTO-compatible.                                                               applicants;