CELEX: C1995/333/39
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 October 1995 by Société Guérin Automobiles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-195/95)

9 . 12 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/21
withholding from the complainant of information as                     nevertheless obliged to carry out a careful and impartial
significant as the existence and contents of requests for              examination of all the relevant elements of each case, in
information and the observations of the undertaking                    order to be able to assess, with full knowledge of the matter,
concerned on the issues involved or on the request for its             the factual and legal aspects submitted by the complainants
comments on the complaint. The applicant remains                       for its consideration .
unaware of the nature of the request for information which
was addressed to Peugeot in the four matters referred to by            The applicant contends that the defendant institution failed
DG IV, and consequently whether that request has any                   to comply with those requirements in the present case. It
bearing whatever on its complaint.                                     argues in that regard that it is not open to the Commission to
                                                                       claim that there was no sufficient Community interest such
Lastly, the decision to proceed on the basis of a system of            as to require it to move on to the next stage of the procedure,
interconnections between the Sodima matter and other                   namely notification of the complaints, or at least the
matters, which is apparent from the Commission's letter of             communication of its intentions pursuant to Article 6 of
12 September 1995 , may be regarded as an artifice designed            Regulation No 99/63 , since :
to delay the outcome of the procedure in the applicant's own
case and to make improper use, in the other cases, of the              ( a ) the Commissioner responsible for competition matters
specific evidence produced by the applicant, thereby                          has publicly stated on numerous occasions that
disregarding the terms laid down by the complainant and                       complaints will be dealt with quickly and that sanctions
the requirements of confidentiality.                                          will be imposed where complaints are well-founded;
                                                                       ( b ) in the present matter, preparatory inquiries into the
                                                                              complaint were all the more necessary in that Nissan
                                                                              France involved the Commission in the drafting of its
Action brought on 17 October 1995 by Société Guérin                           dealership agreement, as is apparent from a letter of
Automobiles against the Commission of the European                             1 July 1993 sent by Nissan France to the applicant.
                            Communities
                                                                       It further states that, had the Commission adopted a
                         ( Case T- 195/95 )                            decision in the form of a withdrawal of exemption or a
                           ( 95/C 333/39 )                             declaration that the clauses and practices followed in its
                                                                       dealings with Nissan France were contrary to Community
                 (Language of the case: French)                        competition law, the applicant would have been able more
                                                                       rapidly to obtain an order for compensation from the
An action against the Commission of the European                       national court before which the matter is pending.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1995
by Societe Guerin Automobiles, established at Alen^on
( France ), represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                Action brought on 17 October 1995 by 'H' against the
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                   ( Case T-l 96/95 )
— declare that the Commission has wrongfully failed to                                           ( 95/C 333/40 )
     act ,
                                                                                        (Language of the case: French)
— alternatively, declare on the basis of Article 215 of the
     Treaty that the Commission has thus incurred                      An action against the Commission of the European
     non-contractual liability towards the applicant, and              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     order it to pay to the applicant compensation assessed at         Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1995
     FF 1 577 188,53 ,
                                                                       by 'H ', residing in Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                       an address for service at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
                                                                       2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant company, a concessionaire of Nissan France               The applicant claims that the Court should:
( which imports Nissan vehicles and is a subsidiary of the
Japanese manufacturer ), contests the Commission's refusal             — declare the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee
to act on a complaint lodged by it against Nissan France                     irregular and void,
concerning the compatibility of the dealership agreement
with Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Regulation                        — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
No 123/85 .                                                                  Communities of 27 September 1994 retiring the
                                                                             applicant and granting her an invalidity pension
It considers that, whilst the Commission is indeed at liberty                pursuant to the provisions of the third paragraph of
to establish an order of priority in dealing with matters, it is             Article 78 of the Staff Regulations,