CELEX: C1999/281/34
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-144/99: Action brought on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (EPI) against the Commission of the European Communities

2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 281/17
Action brought on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of                       — its obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that it
Professional Representatives before the European Patent                       does not explain in what respect, going beyond the
Office (EPI) against the Commission of the European                           principle of comparative advertising authorised by Direc-
                           Communities                                        tive 84/450 as amended by Directive 97/55 (1), the
                                                                              implementation of that principle by the EPI was contrary
                                                                              to Community competition law;
                         (Case T-144/99)
                                                                         — the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 81 thereof,
                                                                              and the rules of law concerning its application, by declaring
                         (1999/C 281/34)                                      the articles of the Code of Conduct in issue, as referred to
                                                                              above, to be contrary to Article 81(1), whereas:
                   (Language of the case: French)                             — first, by amending Directive 84/450 in order to include
                                                                                  comparative advertising within its scope, Directive
                                                                                  97/55 expressly provided for the right to prohibit such
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                  advertising in relation to the activities of professional
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                  persons; and
European Communities on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of
Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office
(EPI), established in Munich (Federal Republic of Germany),                   — second, the provisions forming the subject-matter of
represented by Robert Collin and Mary-Claude Mitchell, of the                     the contested decision concern professional conduct
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       obligations which pursue an objective in the public
Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse.                              interest, constituting a competition factor in accord-
                                                                                  ance with Article 81(1) which is justified by the nature
                                                                                  of those provisions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— partially annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 1999              In the alternative, the EPI maintains that, by exempting the
     relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the              two provisions in issue for a transitional period only, in order
     EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) (Article 53 of the EEA                to give the applicant institute time to adapt to the situation by
     Agreement) (IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct), in so far as            amending its Code of Conduct, when the conditions for
     it concerns Article 2(b)(1) and (3) and Article 5(c) of the         the application of Article 85(3) are already fully met, the
     EPI Code of Conduct;                                                Commission has infringed Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and
                                                                         Article 8 of Regulation No 17/62.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses
     incurred as a result of these proceedings.
                                                                         (1) Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of
                                                                             6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning
                                                                             misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (OJ L 290 of 23.10.1997, p. 18).
The application contests the decision of the Commission by
which it held that two articles of the Code of Professional
Conduct drawn up by the applicant institute (the EPI), which
was itself set up by the Administrative Council of the European
Patent Organisation (‘the EPO’), are contrary to Article 85 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC). The provisions in issue are
Article 2(b)(1) and (3), relating to comparative advertising, and
Article 5(c), relating to relations between representatives of           Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann &
clients and former representatives of those clients.                     Hansen GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
In the contested decision, the Commission takes the view that
those two provisions restrict the freedom of action of members                                    (Case T-155/99)
of the EPI and are designed to restrict competition between
members of the profession. According to the Commission,
those two provisions, one of which prohibits comparative                                          (1999/C 281/35)
advertising and the other of which is liable to impede the
supply of services to former clients of other representatives,
help to crystallise the clientele of each professional representa-                          (Language of the case: German)
tive within each national market, and thus constitute a
restriction of competition which is unnecessary and significant,
since it concerns all professional representatives on the EPO            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
list who are members of the EPI.                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann
                                                                         & Hansen GmbH, of Hamburg, represented by Professor
In support of its arguments, the applicant maintains that the            Hans-Jürgen Rabe, of the Gaedertz partnership, 35 Avenue de
defendant institution has infringed:                                     Tervuren, Brussels.