CELEX: C2001/150/65
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-70/01: Action brought on 26 March 2001 by Pier V. Amione against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

19.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 150/33
Action brought on 20 March 2001 by Imperial Chemical                      ICI claims that the Commission has now retaken the 1990
Industries plc against the Commission of the European                     Article 86 decision, albeit with a number of additions and
                           Communities                                    amendments to the text, and re-imposed the original fine of
                                                                          EUR 10 million. It further claims that no new administrative
                                                                          proceedings were initiated in relation to the decision. The
                          (Case T-66/01)
                                                                          Commission apparently chose to rely on the administrative
                                                                          proceedings which preceded the 1990 Article 85 and
                         (2001/C 150/64)                                  Article 86 decisions.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          —      the fine in question has been imposed after the expiry of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the time-limits laid down by Regulation No 2988/74 (3);
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 March 2001 by Imperial                         —      the Commission has violated the fundamental right to
Chemical Industries plc, represented by David Vaughan QC,                        proceedings within a reasonable time because of the
David Anderson QC, Sarah Lee, Shirley Turner, Sarah Berwick                      passage of time since the matters complained of and the
and Richard Coles                                                                commencement of the Commission’s investigation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      the defendant has disregarded the non bis in idem
                                                                                 principle;
—      annul the Commission Decision dated 13 December
       2000 in Case No COMP/33.133-D: Soda Ash — ICI;                     —      there should have been a fresh administrative procedure
                                                                                 and the failure to conduct one has resulted in infringe-
—      cancel or reduce the fine imposed on ICI by Article 2 of                  ment of essential procedural requirements; and
       the decision;
                                                                          —      the Commission incorrectly assessed the facts, as regards
—      order the Commission to pay ICI’s costs.                                  the applicant’s dominance and abuse, as well as the
                                                                                 question relating to effect on trade between Member
                                                                                 States.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          (1) Cases T-36/91 and T-37/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR
                                                                              II-1847, 1905.
The contested decision in the present case is based upon a
                                                                          (2) Case C-286/95 P Commission v ICI [2000] ECR I — 2341.
finding by the Commission that from about 1983 ‘at least up               (3) Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November
to the end of 1989’:                                                          1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the
                                                                              enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European
—      The applicant (ICI) held a dominant position in the                    Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OL
       market for soda ash in the United Kingdom;                             L 319 of 29.11.1974, p. 1).
—      ICI abused that dominant position by applying to its
       major customers a system of loyalty rebates, discounts by
       reference to marginal tonnage (top slice rebates), and
       contractual arrangements tending to ensure an effective
       exclusivity of supply for ICI, and other devices which had
       the object and effect of tying such customers to ICI and
       of excluding competitors; and
                                                                          Action brought on 26 March 2001 by Pier V. Amione
                                                                          against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
—      ICI’s conduct had an appreciable effect on trade between
       Member States.
                                                                                                     (Case T-70/01)
According to ICI, this decision is a retaking ten years on of an
annulled Commission decision first taken in 1990 against ICI                                        (2001/C 150/65)
itself under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) in
relation to alleged infringements in the soda ash market. Also
in 1990 the Commission took a decision against ICI under                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) in relation to
alleged infringements of that article in the same market. Both
decisions were annulled in their entirety on 29 June 1995 (1).            An action against the Court of Justice of the European
The appeal lodged by the Commission, relating to Case                     Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
T-37/91, was dismissed by the Court of Justice (2). The                   of the European Communities on 26 March 2001 by Pier
judgment in Case T-36/91 was never appealed.                              V. Amione, represented by Riccardo Ventura, avvocato.
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     that the Joint Committee took its decision without first
                                                                                hearing the applicant himself; and
—     annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice         —     that the defendant applied particularly strictly a provision,
      of the EC of 22 May 2000 although only to the extent                      Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, which allows the
      that by that decision the applicant was dismissed with                    appointing authority the possibility, without imposing an
      effect from 1 June 2000 but not that the applicant was                    obligation, of dismissal after two refusals of reinstate-
      not reinstated on 16 July 2000;                                           ment.
—     grant fair compensation, in an amount to be decided by
      the Court of First Instance itself on grounds of equity;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (Case T-72/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 150/66)
The present action is directed against the decision of the
appointing authority to deem terminated the employment
relationship between the applicant, a lawyer-linguist at the
Court of Justice, and that institution, a decision based on the                              (Language of the case: French)
fact that the applicant did not return to work after a period of
unpaid leave on personal grounds.
                                                                          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 2001 by Norman Pyres
                                                                          of Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
The applicant states in that respect that his unpaid leave                Levi, Avocats.
commenced on 1 June 1992. That leave was renewed on three
occasions and expired on 31 May 1995. Pursuant to Article 40
of the Staff Regulations he was offered reinstatement in the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court for 1 January 1999. The offer, dated 19 November
1998, did not come to the applicant’s notice until 23 Novem-
ber 1998. It therefore provided, in the applicant’s view, an              —     annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
excessively short period in which to give a positive reply, and                 COM/TA/99 of 31 May 2000 excluding the applicant
so that offer was not accepted. However, the applicant put to                   from the oral tests in the competition;
the personnel division 16 July 1999 as a possible date for
reinstatement, provided the relevant offer was made to him
within a reasonable period (‘délai raisonnable’). His suggestion          —     annul all subsequent operations and acts in the compe-
was adopted, but by letter which did not reach him until May                    tition;
1999 and so the applicant suggested a reinstatement date of
July 2000.
                                                                          —     so far as necessary, annul the decision of the AHCC of
                                                                                15 December 2000 dismissing the applicant’s complaint;
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:                        —     order the defendant to pay one Euro in compensation for
                                                                                the harm suffered by the applicant;
—     breach of the ‘délai raisonnable’ criterion by the defendant;       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.