CELEX: C2003/101/76
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-48/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Schneider Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

C 101/42                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
The applicant also invokes the violation of several general                         Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/M.2283
principles of Community Law, such as the principles enshrined                       Schneider/Legrand);
in Articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on
Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto.
                                                                              —     annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of
                                                                                    13 December 2002 whereby the Commission closed Case
The applicant finally invokes the illegality of Regulation 2580/                    COMP/M.2283 Schneider/Legrand;
2001. According to the applicant, the Council had no
competence to adopt this regulation. The applicant claims that
Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty are not sufficient                  —     order production of the market studies carried out in
nor do they explicitly authorise the Council to issue such a                        November 2002 in the context of Case COMP/M.2283;
regulation. In this respect, the applicant also invokes a violation
of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal
                                                                              —     order the Commission to produce, on the assumption
certainty and a misuse of power by the Council.
                                                                                    that they exist, the minutes of the meeting of the
                                                                                    Commission at which the decision to close the case was
                                                                                    adopted and the decision delegating a power of signature
( 1) 2002/848/EC: Council Decision of 28 October 2002                               to the Director-General for Competition and authorising
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
                                                                                    him to sign the decision closing the case;
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/460/EC (OJ L 295, p. 12).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001                 —     order the Commission to reimburse the costs incurred in
     on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons              connection with the present actions.
     and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344, p. 7).
( 3) 2002/974/EC: Council Decision of 12 December 2002
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/848/EC (OJ L 337, p. 85).
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              On 10 October 2001, the Commission adopted a decision
                                                                              declaring Schneider’s public exchange offer in respect of all the
                                                                              shares in Legrand held by the public to be incompatible with
                                                                              the common market (1). As Schneider had closed its public
                                                                              offer before that decision was taken, the Commission adopted
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Schneider                               a further decision of 30 January 2002 ordering Schneider to
Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Com-                         divest itself of Legrand. The applicant challenged both these
                                munities                                      decisions in Cases T-301/01 and T-77/02. The Court of First
                                                                              Instance annulled the decisions by judgment of 22 October
                             (Case T-48/03)                                   2002.
                            (2003/C 101/76)
                                                                              On 4 December 2002, the Commission adopted a decision to
                                                                              initiate proceedings, after declaring that the concentration
                       (Language of the case: French)                         raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common
                                                                              market and opened the second phase investigation. The
                                                                              applicant subsequently informed the Commission that as it
                                                                              had divested itself of Legrand, on 10 December, the proceed-
                                                                              ings had become devoid of purpose. On 13 December 2002,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              the Commission closed the file (2).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Schneider
Electric S.A., whose registered office is at Rueil-Malmaison
(France), represented by Antoine Winckler and Marc Pittie,
lawyers.                                                                      In the present case, the applicant challenges the Commission
                                                                              decisions of 4 and 13 December 2002. The applicant states
                                                                              that the true effect of the decisions is to prohibit irremediably
                                                                              the union between Schneider and Legrand. In light of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   obligation to implement the divestiture decision in good faith
                                                                              and the fact that it was impossible to secure provision by
—      annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of                 financial investors of the amounts necessary for an additional
       4 December 2002 based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council                    period in excess of four months, the deadline for disposing of
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/43
Legrand was set at 5 December 2002. According to the                     rejected those measures by making its assessment subordinate
applicant, these economic consequences and the obligation to             to that of a national court and by waiving its exclusive power
comply in good faith with the judgments of the Court of First            to control concentrations of a Community dimension.
Instance meant that the Commission was required to pay
particular attention when resuming the investigation of the
case.
                                                                         The applicant also claims that the Commission made a
                                                                         manifest error of assessment in considering that the corrective
                                                                         measures proposed were insufficient in the light of the
                                                                         allegedly inadequate industrial viability of the undertakings
In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that the
                                                                         disposed of. In addition, it claims that the Commission
Commission did give effect to the judgment of the Court of
                                                                         infringed the principle of proportionality by refusing to take
First Instance in Case T-310/01. The applicant states that the
                                                                         into account the potential acquirers of the shares disposed
Commission resumed the proceedings at ‘stage I’, whereas the
                                                                         of and an alternative proposal to dispose of a significant
Court of First Instance had held that its examination should be
                                                                         shareholding. Last, the applicant claims that the Commission
recommenced at the stage at which the Commission had
                                                                         infringed Regulation No 4064/89 by refusing to analyse the
committed its procedural error, i.e. at the time of communicat-
                                                                         applicant’s undertakings as to conduct.
ing the statement of objections.
                                                                         Last, the applicant claims that the decision to close the
Second, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of             proceedings is vitiated by an error of law, since it has no legal
its rights of defence. It maintains that the Commission did not          basis in Regulation No 4064/89 or in any other principle of
communicate the objections which it intended to use against              law. In that regard, the applicant also relies on an infringement
it within the prescribed period and with the clarity which               of the principle of collegiality of the Commission.
would give it the proper opportunity to submit corrective
measures. The applicant further states that the Commission
refused to grant any access to the results of the market studies
                                                                         (1 ) Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand.
which it carried out for the purpose of evaluating the scope of          (2 ) Initiation of proceedings and abandonment of the planned
the corrective measures proposed by the applicant.                            concentration (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) (Text
                                                                              with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 C 29, p. 5).
                                                                         (3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89/EEC of 21 December 1989
                                                                              on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989
Third, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement               L 395, p. 1).
of the principle of good administration, in that the Commission
distorted the corrective measures in the questionnaire drawn
up for the purpose of the market studies and did not take into
account certain factual matters which qualified the results.
Fourth, the applicant relies on a number of errors of law and
of manifest errors of assessment. The applicant claims that the
Commission ignored the consequences of its decisions by
                                                                         Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Gunda Schumann
stating that serious doubts still existed concerning the compati-
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
bility of the operation with the common market. According to
the applicant, the Commission therefore failed, contrary to the
second paragraph of Regulation No 4064/89 (3) and to the
judgment of the Court of First Instance, to adopt a definitive                                      (Case T-49/03)
position. Furthermore, the Commission is also alleged to have
applied a stricter standard of proof to the facts in issue than
that laid down in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 4064/89.                                           (2003/C 101/77)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
The applicant further claims that the Commission at no time
approached the level of proof required to demonstrate the
effects of a conglomerate of this type.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Last, the applicant states that the Commission made errors of            European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Gunda
law and errors of assessment when analysing the corrective               Schumann, resident in Berlin, represented by I. Bock, lawyer,
measures proposed by the applicant. Thus, the Commission                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.