CELEX: C2000/247/54
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-151/00: Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

C 247/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.8.2000
—     By failing to base its decision upon the criteria prescribed        Pleas in law and main arguments
      in the applicable directive, the Commission erred in law.
                                                                          The applicant is an international association of European flat
—     By failing to accept that exceptional circumstances were            glass producers. It seeks annulment of a Commission decision
      present which could justify reaching a different con-               relating to aid granted by Italy to Sangalli Manfredonia Vetro
      clusion than that of the CPMP, the Commission made a                in connection with the construction of a flat-glass factory at
      manifest error of appreciation, violated the rights of the          Manfredonia in southern Italy.
      applicant to have a fair, neutral and careful examination
      of its products and failed to respect the applicable
      legislation.                                                        The applicant maintains that the regional aid project in issue
                                                                          should have been notified to the Commission in the context
                                                                          of the multi-sectoral framework on regional aid. It doubts that
—     The decision fails to explain, in a clear and consistent
                                                                          the subsidy decision was taken by the Italian authorities on a
      manner, why the two products were harmful, and is
                                                                          date prior to that of the entry into force of the framework
      therefore vitiated by inadequate reasoning.
                                                                          scheme. Moreover, the project exceeds the parameters of the
                                                                          regional scheme authorised by previous decisions of the
—     The decision fails to respect the property rights of                Commission.
      the applicant as these are protected by the European
      Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
      Fundamental Freedoms.                                               In addition, the applicant disputes the Commission’s con-
                                                                          clusion that Sangalli and the Sangalli Vetro group were
                                                                          medium-sized undertakings and that they were therefore
                                                                          entitled to receive an additional 15 % by way of gross grant
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-        equivalent (GGE). It postulates that the method used to define
    mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
    trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ
                                                                          undertakings covered by the notion of small and medium-
    1965, 22, p. 369).                                                    sized enterprises (SMEs) is contrary to Article 87(3)(a) and (e)
                                                                          EC. That method prompted the Commission unlawfully to
                                                                          authorise the grant of aid to undertakings which are not SMEs.
                                                                          Lastly, the Commission committed a manifest error in its
                                                                          assessment of the facts in deciding that the investment aid in
                                                                          issue was in accordance with the Commission’s previous
                                                                          decisions approving the aid scheme provided for in Law
                                                                          No 488/92. Contrary to the requirement laid down by that
Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Groupement Européen                      law, the project in issue was not economically viable. The
des Producteurs de Verre Plat against the Commission of                   Commission’s assessment in that regard was, on the facts,
                   the European Communities                               manifestly erroneous.
                         (Case T-150/00)
                         (2000/C 247/53)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain
                                                                          against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2000 by Groupement                                                 (Case T-151/00)
Européen des Producteurs de Verre Plat, established in Brussels,
represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the
                                                                                                  (2000/C 247/54)
Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
—     annul decision C(99) 2895 final of the Commission of                An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      the European Communities of 20 July 1999 — State aid                Commission of the European Communities was brought
      C86/98 (ex NN 135/98 — Italy — aid granted to Sangalli              before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      Manfredonia Vetro, Apulia (Italy));                                 on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain, established at
                                                                          Nontron (France), represented by Claude Lazarus, of the Paris
—     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.                       Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Council of the European Union and the                   —     declare that the Commission has improperly failed to act,
      Commission of the European Communities to pay to the                    inasmuch as it has unlawfully omitted to take a decision
      applicant, pursuant to Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the                on the complaint made pursuant to Article 3 of Regu-
      sum of 762 245 euro in respect of the damage suffered,                  lation No 17/62; and
      subject to the making up of the sum due to the full
      amount;                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the Council of the European Union and the
      Commission of the European Communities to pay the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      costs.
                                                                        The applicant in the present case, whose principal activity is
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the parallel exportation of medicinal products, objects to the
                                                                        Commission’s failure to respond to the complaint submitted
                                                                        by it regarding the Merck group. That complaint concerned
The applicant company, an undertaking specialising in the               the strategy developed by the latter to combat the parallel
development and manufacture of effervescent cosmetic prod-              market in medicinal products, which took the form of such
ucts for the bath which exports a significant proportion of its         measures as:
production to the United States, is claiming compensation for
the damage suffered as a result of the retaliatory measures             —     the repeated and systematic refusal, on the strength of its
applied by the American authorities to a series of Community                  dominant position, to supply the applicant with three of
products, including bath preparations other than bath salts, in               its special pharmaceutical products;
the context of the dispute concerning the European system for
the importation of bananas. It maintains that the damage                —     the conclusion of concerted agreements with its licensees
which it has suffered is a direct consequence of:                             and certain wholesalers containing an absolute prohib-
                                                                              ition on the exportation of the products referred to above;
—     the adoption and retention by the Council and by
      the Commission of the Community system for the                    —     the establishment of a system of market quotas.
      importation of fresh bananas in breach of the rules laid
      down by GATT and the WTO; and of
                                                                        The complaint was submitted on 15 December 1997, but no
—     the fact that those two institutions omitted to take              decision has been taken on it to date. According to the
      into account the situation of undertakings subjected to           applicant, that inactivity, of over two years’ duration, is placing
      sanctions, which was bound to result from the approach            it in a situation of serious defencelessness. The applicant also
      adopted by them, in violation of the Community prin-              maintains, moreover, that the relevant case-law must be
      ciples of equality and non-discrimination, the protection         understood as imposing on the Commission the obligation to
      of legitimate expectations, freedom to pursue a pro-              examine the facts and legal aspects brought to its attention
      fessional activity and proportionality.                           and to communicate to the party concerned its assessment
                                                                        thereof.
Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Spain Pharma S.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    Action brought on 8 June 2000 by Nicole Robert against
                                                                                            the European Parliament
                         (Case T-153/00)
                                                                                                 (Case T-157/00)
                         (2000/C 247/55)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 247/56)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before
European Communities on 6 June 2000 by Spain Pharma                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
S.A., established in Madrid, represented by Ricardo Gutiérrez           8 June 2000 by Nicole Robert, residing at Strassen (Luxem-
Sánchez, lawyer.                                                       bourg), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar.