CELEX: C1999/281/51
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-175/99: Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities

2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 281/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the contested
                                                                          decision:
— annul the decisions taken by the selection board in
    competition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicants                   — infringes Article 253 EC, in so far as, in the circumstances
    from the tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the                 of the present case, it is not sufficient for the Commission
    said decisions being contained in letters sent to the                     merely to state that Article 82 EC does not prevent an
    applicants on 16 June 1999;                                               undertaking which has a monopoly from expanding into
                                                                              other areas. The applicant stresses that, to its knowledge,
— consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done                    the decision is the first one in which the Commission
    subsequently in the procedure relating to competition                     expresses its views on the question whether an undertaking
    No COM/A/10/98;                                                           enjoying an exclusive right to perform a service of general
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      interest can use the profits deriving from the reserved
                                                                              market to acquire control of an undertaking in a neigh-
                                                                              bouring liberalised country.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — ignores the fact that the use of profits deriving from an
                                                                              exclusive right which is granted solely in order to ensure
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                   performance of a service of general economic interest
T-172/99 Pentericci v Commission (1).                                         would constitute an abuse of a dominant position, pro-
                                                                              hibited under Article 82 EC.
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 340, of 7.11.98, p. 25.
Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Action brought on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa
                                                                                   against the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-175/99)
                                                                                                   (Case T-176/99)
                         (1999/C 281/51)
                                                                                                  (1999/C 281/52)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                An action against the Council of the European Union was
Communities on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA,                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
represented by T.R. Ottervanger and D. Arts, with an address              Communities on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa, residing
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff Claeys                 in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.                                            Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
                                                                          sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 1999 rejecting               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                          — annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the                       authorisation to rent and occupy, from 1 April 1998, an
    applicant in the present proceedings;                                     apartment corresponding to the needs of her family at a
                                                                              monthly rent of CHF 4 800 plus service charges;
— take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
    priate.                                                               — order the defendant to pay an allowance corresponding to
                                                                              the amount of that rent plus service charges from 1 April
                                                                              1998 and interest at the annual rate of 6 % from the date
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               on which the rental payments in question fell due;
                                                                          — order the defendant in addition to pay, by way of
The applicant in the present case, which is also the applicant                compensation for the material damage suffered, the sum
in Case T-127/98 UPS Europe v Commission, (1) challenges the                  of CHF 100 216, plus the sum of 50 000 euro by way of
Commission’s decision rejecting its complaint, but only that                  compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the
part of it which concerns Article 82 EC and relates to the                    applicant and her family;
concentration by means of which Deutsche Post AG (DPAG)
intends to acquire control of DHL International Ltd.                      — order the defendant to pay the costs.