CELEX: C2000/149/69
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-51/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacurta against the Commission of the European Communities

C 149/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacurta
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision of
     8 December 1998 in Case IV/E-1/35.860-B — seamless
     steel tubes                                                                                   (Case T-51/00)
— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the                                     (2000/C 149/69)
     applicant;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacur-
The applicant has been accused of participation in an agree-            ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, Avocat,
ment involving European and Japanese producers of seamless              Luxembourg.
steel tubes in connection with the so-called Europe-Japan Club,
an agreement providing, inter alia, for protection of national
markets in standard edged and ‘linepipe project’ OCTG (Oil
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Country Tubular Goods) tubes. The applicant is further
accused, as part of the same infringement, of participating in a
further agreement between European producers only, con-                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant’s
sisting in the sharing out of the supply of smooth OCTG tubes                complaint concerning his request for communication
to British Steel.                                                            of the document embodying the appointing authority’s
                                                                             decision appointing him with effect from 1 September
                                                                             1996 to the Planning, contracts and general services unit
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following
                                                                             of the Office for Official Publications of the European
defects:
                                                                             Communities in Luxembourg;
— Procedural infringement during the administrative phase,
     concerning, inter alia, the inadmissibility of certain ques-       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Office
     tions put to the applicant by the Commission during its                 for Official Publications of the European Communities of
     investigation, the handling of confidentiality and the                  15 May 1998 assigning the applicant to the Coedition and
     failure of certain documents annexed to the Statement of                copyright unit in Luxembourg on the grounds that it is
     Objections to correspond with the documents used in the                 based on an act which either does not exist or is not in
     decision.                                                               conformity with the Staff Regulations;
— Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and of the                   — order the Commission of the European Communities to
     legitimate expectations of the applicant in relation to the             pay all costs and fees incurred in the proceedings;
     inclusion in the contested decision of descriptions of fact
     not contained in the objections sent to the undertakings.
                                                                        — note that the applicant reserves his rights in respect of all
— Failure to act, contradictoriness in reasoning, and infringe-              other rights, entitlements, pleadings and actions, including
     ment of Article 81 of the Treaty in relation to the market              those relating to damages.
     analysis and the commercial conduct of Dalmine, the
     alleged unlawfulness of the supply contracts for the United
     Kingdom and the restrictive nature of the agreement in the
     context of the Europe-Japan Club.                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Specifically concerning the supply contracts for the United
                                                                        The applicant contests the Commission’s decision rejecting the
Kingdom, the applicant states that its contract with British
                                                                        request which he submitted on 20 July 1999 for communi-
Steel, which was not the result of an agreement between
                                                                        cation of the official decision reassigning him with effect from
European producers, largely concerns products which do not
                                                                        1 September 1996 to the Official Publications Office in
fall within the relevant market as defined by the Commission.
                                                                        Luxembourg.
Moreover, the applicant did not participate in any horizontal
agreement with other European producers for the sharing out
of supply in the United Kingdom.
                                                                        In support of his action he maintains that that decision:
                                                                        — infringes Articles 2, 3 and 25 of the Staff Regulations;
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/37
— infringes Article 101a of the Staff Regulations, as well as           Action brought on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
    the principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen against the Commission of
    the principle of the hierarchy of rules;                                              the European Communities
— breaches the principle of protection of legitimate expec-                                      (Case T-58/00)
    tations; and
                                                                                                (2000/C 149/71)
— is vitiated by misuse of powers and failure to comply with
    proper procedure.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 12 March 2000 by Bond van de
                                                                        Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen, a non-profit-making associ-
Action brought on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompani-                    ation under Belgian law, established in Brussels, and two other
et and Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB against the                       applicants, represented by J. van Hoof, of the Brussels Bar,
Council of the European Union and the Commission of                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                 the European Communities                               F. Brouxel.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                         (Case T-57/00)
                                                                        — annul Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December
                        (2000/C 149/70)                                      1999 in so far as, whether or not in conjunction with the
                                                                             White Paper, infringements are to have no retroactive
                                                                             effect and/or Article 4 failed to include abuses attributable
                  (Language of the case: English)                            to economic dependence;
                                                                        — in the alternative: set aside the consultation procedure and
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                             order that this be repeated in a transparent manner, and
Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                             that a statement of position be requested in regard to the
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             abolition of the retroactive effects of automatic nullity
on 14 March 2000 by AB Banan-Kompaniet, Stockholm and
                                                                             provided for in Article 81(2) EC, and the consequences of
Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, Arsta (Sweden) represented
                                                                             the modernisation programme for the situation of small
by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
                                                                             and medium-sized undertakings and consumers, as well as
                                                                             economic dependence in general and economic depen-
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  dence by virtue of cumulative effect in particular;
— require the Commission and the Council, pursuant to                   — order the Commission to pay costs.
    Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 235
    EC and 288 EC), to pay the applicants damages in respect
    of the loss suffered by them by reason of the unlawful              Pleas in law and main arguments
    adoption of Council Decision 94/800 and Commission
    Regulation (EC) No 478/95.                                          The Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen is an associ-
                                                                        ation which safeguards the interests of the regional associations
                                                                        of garage owners and their members.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        This application seeks the annulment of Commission Regu-
The applicants are part of the Saba Group of companies and              lation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the
are engaged in the purchase, import and sale of bananas in              application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of
Scandinavia. They were entitled to Category A banana import             vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336,
licences and imported bananas from Colombia and Costa Rica.             p. 21).
Their application concerns the damage suffered by them as a
result of having to purchase export licences in the period 1995
                                                                        This regulation forms part of a European Commission pro-
to 1998 in order to enable them to exercise their rights to             gramme for the modernisation of the application of the
obtain import licences.
                                                                        Community rules on competition. Within the context of this
                                                                        programme, the applicants also refer to the Green Paper on
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants            vertical restraints on competition (COM(96) 721 def.), the
are similar to those put forward in Case T-56/00.                       White Paper on modernisation of the competition rules (OJ
                                                                        1999 C 132), Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 amending
                                                                        Regulation No 17 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 5), and the Guidelines
                                                                        on Vertical Restraints (OJ 1999 C 270, p. 12).