CELEX: C1996/269/60
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 July 1996 by ITT Promedia NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-111/96)

14 . 9 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 269/27
instrument enabling the application lodged by Sisas on                    applicant, in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of
Pantochim's behalf to be granted is a decision which,                     Procedure of the Court of First Instance .
although addressed to France, is of direct and individual
concern to the applicant . Pantochim is currently the only
non-French producer within the Community that is                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
genuinely capable of supplying biodiesel in France at a price
that is competitive with that of standard diesel , in so far as it,
like its French competitors, is entitled to the exemption from        The applicant states that the contested decision rejected
excise duty .                                                         specific aspects of a complaint ('the complaint') filed by ITT
                                                                      Promedia NV ('Promedia ') with the European Commission
The applicant also contends that the systematic refusal by            ('the Commission ') on 20 October 1994 against Belgacom
the French administrative authorities to grant the tax relief         NV (' Belgacom') alleging infringements of Article 86 of the
in respect of the biodiesel that it produces reflects their           EC Treaty. The behaviour challenged in the complaint
desire to close off the French market by preventing the only          involves, inter alia, vexatious and confiscatory legal
genuinely competitive non-French producer of biodiesel                proceedings brought by Belgacom against Promedia .
within the Community from gaining access to that                      According to the applicant those actions were part of a plan
market .                                                              to drive it out of business and were based on the Belgian
                                                                      regulatory framework governing commercial directories
                                                                      whose status was questionable under Articles 59, 86 and 90
It also considers that the procedures applied by the French           of the EC Treaty . The second action sought to stop
administrative authorities patently infringe Article 95 of the        Promedia from requesting the subscriber data necessary for
EC Treaty. It is clear, in its view, that those procedures            the publication of directories . The third action sought
adversely affect both the free movement of biodiesel and              expropriation of Promedia 's business in the guise of a
normal conditions of competition between Member States :              contractual claim under a publishing agreement which
the conditions of competition of biofuel producers                    linked Promedia and Belgacom at a time when Belgacom
established in Belgium and those for producers established            enjoyed a statutory monopoly with respect to directories .
in France are not normalized by the rules governing the
grant of the tax relief at issue .
                                                                      The applicant submits that the Commission was wrong in
                                                                      rejecting the complaint. Its arguments are that:
                                                                      — the Commission made an incorrect assessment of the
                                                                           facts which resulted in an inadequate statement of
                                                                           reasons in breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in
                                                                           respect of a material argument put forward by Promedia
 Action brought on 22 July 1996 by ITT Promedia NV                         in support of its claim concerning Belgacom's vexatious
   against the Commission of the European Communities                      litigation ,
                        ( Case T-lll /96 )
                          ( 96/C 269/60 )
                                                                      — the Commission made a manifest error of appraisal and
                                                                           failed to review all elements of the case with due care in
                 (Language of the case: English)                           respect of the Belgian regulatory framework governing
                                                                           directories ,
 An action against the Commission of the European                      — the Commission relied on an incorrect assessment of the
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                         Belgian regulatory framework governing directories
 Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 1996 by                   with the result that the conclusion in paragraph 22 of its
 ITT Promedia NV, represented by Ivo Van Bael , Peter                      decision was defective ,
 L'Ecluse and Kris Van Hove , with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue
 Goethe .                                                              — the Commission made a manifest error of appraisal
                                                                           regarding the supposed legality of Belgacom 's refusal to
                                                                           supply,
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul the Commission decision of 21 May 1996 to reject              — the Commission made a manifest error of appraisal in
     definitively the complaint filed with the Commission                  respect of Belgacom's strategy to eliminate Promedia in
     and registered under number IV/35.268 in so far as it                  order to benefit Belgacom's subsidiary, BDS ,
     concerns Belgacom 's vexatious and confiscatory
     litigation,                                                       — the Commission gave an inadequate statement of
                                                                            reasons in breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
 — order the Commission to pay the costs in connection                      regarding the rejection of the part of the complaint
     with the present application, including those of the                   relating to Belgacom 's confiscatory action,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 9 . 96
— the Commission has manifestly misinterpreted the law in            — Appointment not in the interest of the service : The
    respect of Article 86 of the EC Treaty with the result that          applicant argues that, in disregard of Article 7 of the
    conclusions in paragraphs 30 to 37 of its decision were              Staff Regulations, the appointment of the successful
    defective .                                                          candidate did not satisfy the needs of the service but was
                                                                         decided purely for formal reasons and in the interest of
                                                                         the person concerned . After her promotion, the
                                                                         candidate appointed retained the same functions she had
                                                                         previously performed at grade A 3 , which did not
                                                                         correspond to the vacancy notice .
Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Seche
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 — Sex discrimination : The lack of reasons stated for the
                       ( Case T-l 12/96 )                                decision invites the suspicion that one of the
                         ( 96/C 269/61                                   Commission's reasons was a purely sexual preference ,
                                                                         prohibited by the principle of equal treatment between
                                                                         male and female workers .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                     — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        applicant maintains that he was discriminated against by
Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 1996 by                  reason of his nationality, age and sex.
Jean-Claude Seche, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar , with an address for service in       — Misuse of powers and abuse of process : The
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort               appointment of the successful candidate was not
Rheinsheim .                                                             motivated in any way by the interest of the service , but
                                                                         was made firstly in the interests of the person concerned
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             and , secondly, in order to achieve the doubling of the
                                                                         number of women at A 2 level in the Commission in
— annul the Commission 's decision appointing the                        1996 .
    successful candidate on 22 May 1996 to the post of
    Principal Legal Adviser, grade A 2 , in the Legal                — Infringement of the obligation to have due regard to the
    Service ,                                                            interests of officials .
— annul the decision, implicit in the contested decision
    referred to above , not to appoint the applicant to fill the     — Breach of good faith and the principle of the protection
    post of Principal Legal Adviser in the Legal Service ,               of legitimate expectations : The applicant maintains that
                                                                         he was in a situation in which the Community
— as the legal consequence of the annulment of the above                 administration had given him reasonable grounds to
    decisions, order the Commission to amend the                         expect that he would be promoted to grade A 2 .
    applicant's career bracket with effect from 1 June
    1996 ,                                                           As regards the claim for damages, the applicant argues that
                                                                     the decisions he seeks to have annulled , and which are
— order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in                 clearly in breach of duty having regard to their
    symbolic compensation for non-material damage,                   unlawfulness, have caused him significant non-material
                                                                     damage for which the Commission must make
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            compensation .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant makes the following arguments tn support of
his action :
— Lack of comparative examination of the merits : The
    applicant questions whether the candidates ' merits were
    objectively compared before the decisions were made,             Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Biscuiterie-Confiserie
    and adds that the procedure followed offered no                  LOR and Confiserie du TECH against the Commission of
    guarantees that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                           the European Communities
    the principle of equal treatment were complied with . He                                 ( Case T-l 14/96 )
    considers, moreover, that comparison of the merits                                         ( 96/C 269/62 )
    could not have led the Commission to prefer the
    successful person 's candidature to his own .
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
— Failure to state reasons : The applicant maintains that the
    Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff
    Regulations, in that no reasons are stated in the                An action against the Commission of the European
    contested decisions .                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First