CELEX: C1998/007/67
Language: en
Date: 1998-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 November 1997 by Kuljetusliike Pynnönen Oy against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-285/97)

C 7/24                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10. 1. 98
Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Thierry Bigard                Ð order the Commission in any event to pay the costs
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.
                       (Case T-284/97)
                          (98/C 7/66)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   The applicant, a transport company based in Finland,
An action against the Commission of the European                   seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision that
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  may be contained in a letter of 10 October 1997, in so far
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October                 as, by that letter, the Commission took a formal position
1997 by Thierry Bigard, residing at Bridel (Luxembourg),           in response to a formal request to the Commission to
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and                 adopt a decision pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire             concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger
Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.                                   Regulation), in relation to a concentration or series of
                                                                   concentrations in 1995 between two Finnish banking
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        groups namely Union Bank of Finland (UBF) and
                                                                   Kansallis-Osake-Pankki (KOP), creating a new merged
Ð annul the decisions expressly rejecting his request for          banking entity under the name of Merita Oy. The
    reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in                  concentration was not notified to the Commission in
    respect of household grants,                                   accordance with the procedure laid down in the
                                                                   abovementioned Regulation.
Ð order the defendant to reimburse to him all sums
    wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the            The contested decision is essentially based on the
    rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each                  considerations that the concentration should not have a
    deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,            Community dimension and that, in any case, the two-
                                                                   thirds rule laid down in the first subparagraph of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Article 1 (2) of the Merger Regulation should be
                                                                   applicable. Moreover, the period of two years which
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                elapsed between the announcement of the merger and the
                                                                   submission of the complaint constituted unreasonable
The pleas in law and arguments advanced by the applicant           delay.
in support of his claims are the same as those in Case
T-181/97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice (1).
                                                                   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
(1) OJ C 252, 16. 8. 1997, p. 35.                                  contested decision:
                                                                   Ð infringes essential procedural requirements, in so far
                                                                       as, on one hand, the letter of 10 October 1997 fails to
                                                                       indicate whether the act has been adopted by the
                                                                       college of Commissioners as such or by the Director
Action brought on 3 November 1997 by Kuljetusliike                     who signed it and, on the other hand, before formally
Pynnönen Oy against the Commission of the European                     rejecting the complaint, the Commission has neither
                         Communities                                   indicated its provisional views nor assured appropriate
                       (Case T-285/97)                                 access to the file,
                          (98/C 7/67)
                                                                   Ð has infringed the Treaty and rules relating to its
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       application, in so far as the Commission erred in law
                                                                       in stating that in the absence of a complaints
An action against the Commission of the European                       procedure it can take no decision. According to the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      applicant, the Commission has jurisdiction to reject a
Instance of the European Communities on 3 November                     complaint that an unnotified concentration has a
1997 by Kuljetusliike Pynnönen Oy, represented by                      Community dimension, just as, in the field of State
Nicholas Forwood QC and Professor Zacharias                            aid, it has the power to adopt a decision rejecting a
Sundström, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                State aid complaint on the ground that the measures
the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, L-2010                             complained of do not constitute State aid.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        As to the substance of the applicant's contention with
                                                                   regard to Article 8 (3) of the Merger Regulation, it is
Ð annul the letter of 10 October 1997, in so far as it             submitted that the agreed bid announced in February
    contains or communicates any decision or act of the            1995 constituted one or more concentrations with a
    Commission in response to the applicant's request              Community dimension, both UBF and KOP having
    pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty,                      worldwide and EC turnover in excess of the limits set by
 ---pagebreak--- 10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/25
the Merger Regulation. As regards, specifically, the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
geographical allocation of turnover, the applicant states
that a substantial part of the bank's loan portfolios
comprised loans made to Finnish borrowers that were                The applicant, who has also brought in Cases T-235/95 (1)
denominated in foreign currencies and were payable as to           and T-262/97 (2), challenges the inaction of the
interest and capital outside Finland.                              Commission in relation to a complaint, concerning the
                                                                   alleged anti-competitive practices on the part of the
                                                                   General Medical Council (GMC), a statutory body which
                                                                   regulates the medical profession in the territory of the
In relation to the calculation of aggregate turnover for the       United Kingdom. On August 1993 the applicant, a
undertakings concerned for the purposes of the two-thirds          community medical specialist in rheumatology, submitted
rule, the applicant submits that the branches or                   to the Commission pursuant to Article 3 (2) of Council
subsidiaries of UBF and KOP in London, Luxembourg and              Regulation No 17 an application for a finding that the
Zurich should be regarded as separate undertakings so              GMC had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.
that, unless they also derived two-thirds of their turnover        According to the applicant's complaint, the GMC:
from Finland, the two-thirds test would not be satisfied by
each of the undertakings concerned'.
                                                                   Ð restricts persons holding a Community Medical
                                                                       Specialist Diploma issued pursuant to Council
                                                                       Directive 93/16/EC from having their specialist status
The applicant finally submits that the time taken to
                                                                       publicized in the Medical Register, and
submit the complaint is not unreasonable. First, the
concentration has not been communicated. Secondly, the
Commission's approach disregards the fact that until early         Ð has rules which inhibit direct access to the status of
in 1997 the applicant had no reason to suspect that the                Community Medical Specialist and inhibit advertising
concentration might have a Community dimension.                        by Community Medical Specialists to the public.
(1) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989, p. 1.                                  By letter dated 28 November 1995 the applicant sent the
                                                                   Commission a notice pursuant to Article 175 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By letter dated 6 December 1995 the Commission,
                                                                   declared that it was unable to take a formal position
                                                                   within the prescribed period of two months and stated
                                                                   that it preferred to work towards such a position without
                                                                   any specific framework. By letter dated 1 August 1997 the
                                                                   applicant formally requested the Commission to define its
Action brought on 5 November 1997 by Anthony
                                                                   position with regard to its complaint within two months.
Goldstein against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                        (Case T-286/97)                            It follows, according to the applicant, that the conditions
                                                                   laid down in Article 175 were satisfied and that the
                          (98/C 7/68)                              Commission was required within that provision to take a
                                                                   definitive position on the request within two months.
                                                                   Since no reply has been received from the Commission, it
                                                                   must be considered that this obligation was not complied
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   with.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 64, 2. 3. 1996, p. 19.
An action against the Commission of the European                   (2) OJ C 370, 6. 12. 1997, p. 8.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 November
1997 by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St
John Murphy, solicitor, of Merriman White, 3 King's
Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London.
                                                                   Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Regione
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia against the Commission
                                                                                   of the European Communities
                                                                                           (Case T-288/97)
Ð declare that contrary to Article 175 of the EC Treaty                                       (98/C 7/69)
    the Commission failed to define its position on the
    request submitted to it by the applicant pursuant to
    that provision,                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Communities was brought before the Court of First