CELEX: C1997/199/80
Language: en
Date: 1997-06-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Sonasa, Sociedade Nacional de Segurança, Lda. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-126/97)

28 . 6 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/33
ordinarily regarded as highly material to market                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
definition. It adopted a highly selective approach to other
evidence on market definition and dominance, and placed
inordinate weight on untested or subjective views and on
evidence of factors having limited probative value.                 The applicant challenges the Commission's decision
Furthermore, the Commission invoked an irrelevant legal             reducing the amount granted for a training programme
provision, namely Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )             undertaken by it in 1989 .
No 4064/89 ( OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p. 1 ), in
analysing TCCC's relationship to CCE, and literally
ignored uncontested testimony by a renowned authority
on the applicable corporate governance standards supplied           In support of its claim the applicant alleges breach of the
by US law.                                                          principles of stability, legal certainty and legitimate
                                                                    expectation, together with breach of the principle of
                                                                    proper administration of justice and of the duty of care .
                                                                    The contested decision is vitiated by a lack of an adequate
The applicant states in this regard that TCCC does not              statement of reasons and abuse of rights on the ground of
own, or have the right to use, any of CCE's assets; it does         venire contra factum proprium, in view of the manifest
not own or control a majority shareholding in CCE, has              breach of the protected rights of individuals — acquired
no preferential shares giving it a majority of the voting           rights — legal certainty and legitimate expectations .
rights in CCE, has no veto rights, has no right to appoint
any members of CCE's board, and has no agreement with
other shareholders to confer majority voting power or               In particular, following approval for the training project to
permit the appointment of directors.                                be organized by the applicant, DAFSE considered that the
                                                                    applicant was not complying with the rule that the hours
                                                                    timetabled for practical training cannot exceed those for
                                                                    theory training. This finding was based on the fact that,
                                                                    despite the applicant having submitted identical timetables
                                                                    for the theory training ( 200 hours ) and the practical
                                                                    training ( 200 hours ), DAFSE doubted whether the 'theory
                                                                    training sessions' consisted of theory at all . Moreover, the
Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Sonasa, Sociedade                theory sessions provided in the training project at issue
Nacional de Segurança, Lda. against the Commission of               were absolutely identical with those provided in the
                 the European Communities                           training project undertaken the previous year ( 1988 ),
                                                                    which neither DAFSE nor the Commission had challenged,
                       ( Case T-126/97)                             despite its having been observed by DAFSE inspectors .
                         ( 97/C 199/80 )
                                                                    The applicant points out the fact that, two years after the
                                                                    submission of the claim for payment of the outstanding
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    balance, the applicant was informed by DAFSE that there
                                                                    was to be a factual and accounting verification of the
                                                                    projects undertaken in the framework of the procedure
                                                                    relating to the ESF contributions for 1989 . However, only
An action against the Commission of the European                    two years after that announcement and, therefore, four
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    years after the submission of the claim for payment of the
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
                                                                    outstanding balance, the applicant was made aware of an
by Sonasa, Sociedade Nacional de Segurança, Lda ., having           audit report which considered ineligible, among other
its registered office at Av. Infante D. Henrique, Lote 328­         expenditure which is not considered here, expenditure in
C, Cabo Ruivo, 1800 Lisboa, represented by Dr Nuno
                                                                    respect of the theory sessions, thus further reducing the
Morais Sarmento, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for             total amount of the contributions from the ESF and the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen,             OSS from Esc 27 841 049 ( total expenditure incurred ) to
13 Rue Aldringen, Luxembourg.                                       Esc 15 591 329 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant now finds itself, nearly seven years after the
                                                                    final payment claim and after all the advances paid by
                                                                    DAFSE and the Commission, in an unjustly uncertain
                                                                    situation inasmuch as the Commission gave rise to an
— annul        Commission      Decision  C(96 )    3451    of       expectation that it would pay the outstanding balance
     16 December 1996,                                              which it now refuses to do .
— order the defendant to pay the costs.