CELEX: C1996/354/65
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 October 1996 by Christiane Chvatal and Others against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-154/96)

23 . 11 . 96         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/33
Action brought on 2 October 1996 by Union Carbide                  The applicant claims that the Commission manifestly
Corporation against the Commission of the European                 erred :
                         Communities
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to enforce the conditions upon
                      ( Case T-153/96 )
                                                                       which the Decision 94/81 1 /EC was approved and which
                        ( 96/C 354/64 )                                it sought to waive,
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to make a determination in light of
              (Language of the case: English)                          the evidence presented by the applicant that the
                                                                       conditions attached to Decision 94/8 1 1 /EC had not been
                                                                       met, and was therefore precluded from waiving such
An action against the Commission of the European                       conditions,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1996             — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
by Union Carbide Corporation, represented by Brian                     position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
Hartnett, of the Irish Bar, with an address for service in             ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the worldwide market
Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt & Medernach,                      for PP technology, and
Postal box 39 ,
                                                                  — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
                                                                       position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the Western European
                                                                       market for PP resin .
— annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C/96
    1035 Final — Shell/Montecatini , and                          The applicant further submits that the Commission lacks
                                                                  competence to amend decisions under the Merger
— order the Commission to pay the costs , disbursements            Regulation and that therefore Decision C/96 1035 Final is
                                                                   ultra vires .
    and fees of the applicant pursuant to Article 87 of the
    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities .                                         Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission
                                                                  Decision is flawed in that it is in breach of essential
                                                                  procedural requirements .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an undertaking which operates in a wide
range of markets, including the licensing, via a joint venture
with Shell Oil, of its Unipol PP technology, challenges
Commission Decision C/96 1035 Final . This decision
                                                                  Action brought on 8 October 1996 by Christiane Chvatal
purports to amend Commission Decision 94/81 1 /EC                 and Others against the Court of Justice of the European
declaring the compatibility with the common market of the                                    Communities
transaction giving rise to Montell, a joint venture between
Shell Petroleum NV (' Shell '), a member of the Royal Dutch                               ( Case T-154/96 )
Shell Group, and Montedison Nederland NV                                                    ( 96/C 354/65 )
(' Montedison '), a subsidiary of Montecatini , in the
polyolefins business, including technology and production                           (Language of the case: French)
facilities for polypropylene ('PP') and other organic
chemicals of the polyolefins group ( Case No IV/M.269 ).
Decision 94/81 1 /EC is the subject of an action for an           An action against the Court of Justice of the European
annulment brought by the applicant pursuant to the fourth          Communities was brought before the Court of First
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty and Article 43 et       Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 1996
seq of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance      by Christiane Chvatal, Jean-Yves Delaval, Jean Demaeght,
of the European Communities ( Case T-322/94 Union                 Giovanna Dragoni, John Hambly, Marc Kemmerling
Carbide v. Commission , OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 ,            Laleure, Kirsten Lammar, Theo Lippert, Antoinette Losch,
p. 17 ).                                                          Angus Mackay, Kaj Østergaard, Maureen Russell , Yvette
                                                                  Schroeder-Goerens, Ulrike Sinter, Aristides Vlachos and
                                                                  Hans Weller, all residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Decision C/96 1035 Final of 24 April 1996 purports to
                                                                  Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of
remove the conditions and obligations which the
Commission had attached to Decision 94/81 1 /EC . The
                                                                  the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                  at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, Sari , 30 Rue de
Commission held that, in the light of the divestiture of the
                                                                  Cessange .
Shell Oil assets relating to the UCC/Shell Oil licensing
business and their acquisition by UCC, the technology
commitment described in paragraph 116 of Decision                 The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
94/81 1 /EC was no longer necessary and that therefore the        should :
concentration between Shell and Montedison could be
declared compatible with the common market without the            — declare Council Regulation No 2688/95 of
need for any conditions or obligations attached to it.                 17 November 1995 to be unlawful inasmuch as its scope
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/34            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
    is confined exclusively to officials of the European               Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Stadt Mainz against
    Communities who are in the service of the European                        the Commission of the European Communities
    Parliament, and, consequently,                                                             Case T-155/96 )
                                                                                               ( 96/C 354/66 )
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the
    applicants ' request that their names be entered on the list
    of persons having manifested their interest in being the                         (Language of the case: German)
    subject of a decision terminating their services as a result
    of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Court of Justice to pay the costs .                        Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1996
                                                                       by Stadt Mainz ( City of Mainz ), Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernhard
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Maassen, Cord-Georg Hasselmann and Horst Satzky,
                                                                       Rechtsanwalte, of Messrs Hengeler Mueller Weitzel Wirtz,
The applicants maintain that the decision rejecting their              Berlin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
requests and, so far as may be necessary, the decision                 chambers of Jean Hoss, of Messrs Hoss & Prussen, 15 Cote
rejecting their complaints are unlawful inasmuch as they               d'Eich .
apply a regulation which is in itself unlawful, namely
Council Regulation No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995
introducing special measures to terminate the service of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
officials of the European Communities . The applicants
consider that Regulation to be unlawful in that it applies             — annul the decision of the European Commission of
solely to officials of the European Communities who are in                  17 July 1996 concerning the grant of State aid by the
the service of the European Parliament.                                    City of Mainz to the property management company
                                                                           Fort Malakoff Mainz GmbH & Co . KG ( State aid No
They consider that this restriction of the scope of the                    C 64/94, ex NN 2/93 ),
Regulation constitutes an infringement of Article 24 of the
Merger Treaty, Article 210 of the EC Treaty, Article C of the          — order the European Commission to pay the costs .
Union Treaty and Article 1 of the Staff Regulations of
Officials, which lay down the principle of the unity of the
Community civil service . It also contravenes the principle of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
equal treatment of and non-discrimination between officials
in that its result is to treat officials differently even though
they are in the same situation .                                       The applicant contests the decision of the European
                                                                       Commission of 17 July 1996 declaring that the sale to the
                                                                       property management company Fort Malakoff GmbH &
Secondly, the applicants plead infringement of essential               Co . KG, a subsidiary of Siemens AG/Siemens Nixdorf
procedural requirements, and more specifically failure to              Informationssysteme AG, of a piece of property located in
comply with the procedure laid down in Article 10 of the               the City of Mainz at a price below its market value
Staff Regulations and Article 24 of the Merger Treaty for all          constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ) of
amendments of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the                  the EC Treaty amounting to DM 4 904 725 . According to
Commission's proposal, on the basis of which the                       the said decision, the aid is unlawful, since it was granted in
Regulation at issue was adopted, was not submitted to the              breach of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the
Staff Regulations Committee, or to the European                        aid is not compatible with the common market, because it
Parliament, or to the Court of Justice or to the Court of              does not fulfil the criteria governing the exceptions and
Auditors .                                                             exemptions provided for in Article 92 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ).
Thirdly, they plead breach of the duty to state reasons as laid        The applicant submits that, although the decision of the
down in Article 190 of the EC Treaty and point out that the            European Commission is addressed to the Federal Republic
sole argument put forward to justify the contested                     of Germany, it is of direct concern to the City of Mainz, as
restriction in the recitals in the preamble to the Regulation is       the alleged grantor of the aid, since it will be obliged, if the
incorrect .                                                            decision were upheld, to reclaim the aid allegedly
                                                                       granted .
Lastly, they consider that the Regulation in question is the
result of a deliberate intention to favour one institution to          The applicant further contends that the agreed sale price
the detriment of the others and of the interests of the service,       falls within the price margin applying to comparable
which constitutes a misuse of powers .                                 properties with comparable characteristics situated in
                                                                       comparable locations, as established, moreover, by an
                                                                       independent committee of experts . Consequently, the
                                                                       applicant clearly cannot be said to have granted State aid to
                                                                       Fort Malakoff. The agreements concluded between the