CELEX: C2000/149/63
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2000 in Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

C 149/32                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Registrar, made an order on 7 March 2000, the operative part                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of which is as follows:
                                                                                                   of 24 February 2000
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Industrie des
Poudres Sphériques to the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie is       in Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele and others v the
fixed at FRF 207 507,50.                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                                   (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of contested measure
                                                                                                 — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                                     (2000/C 149/62)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele, residing in Overijse
                         of 24 February 2000                               (Belgium), Patricia De Palma, residing in Brussels, and Claudine
                                                                           Hamptaux, residing in Brussels, officials of the Commission of
in Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja and Others v Council of                     the European Communities, represented by L. Vogel , of the
                       the European Union (1)                              Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of C.
                                                                           Kremer, of Faltz et Associés, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
(Action for annulment — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No                       Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
           194/1999 — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)                        sia and J. Currall ) — application for annulment of the elections
                                                                           held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to the Staff Committee of
                                                                           the local Brussels section and the appointments made by that
                           (2000/C 149/61)
                                                                           committee following those elections — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     (Language of the case: English)                       President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February 2000, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja, established in Riga (Latvia),
Zaklady Plyt Pilśniowych SA w Krośnie Odrzańskim, estab-
                                                                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on this application.
lished in Krosno Odrzanskie (Poland), Alpex-Karlino SA w
Karlino, established in Karlino (Poland) and Zaklady Plyt                  2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings
Pilśœniowych SA w Czarnej Wodzie, established in Czarna                        including the costs relating to the application for interim
Woda (Poland) represented by V.N. Akritidis, of the Athens                      measures.
Bar, and T. Pick, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v Council of the European                (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe, G.M. Berrisch and
H.-G. Kamann) — application for the annulment of Council
Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard orig-
inating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties
imposed (OJ 1999 L 22, p. 16) — the Court (Fifth Chamber,
                                                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February                                     of 16 March 2000
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           in Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                the European Communities (1)
2. There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application
                                                                           (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
     for leave to intervene.
                                                                                  Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
3. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and, jointly
     and severally, to pay the costs of the Council save for those                                   (2000/C 149/63)
     relating to the preparation and submission of its defence.
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                           In Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
                                                                           Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 149/33
Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London             — in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article
v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal)                    5(1) of that decision to the sum of EUR 1 000;
— application for compensation for the non-material loss
alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the
Commission’s alleged failure to provide a national court with
information in accordance with its obligations under the EC              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Treaty — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P.
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on
16 March 2000, in which it orders the following:
                                                                         Pleas in law and principal arguments
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant is a sectorial association established in 1918 to
                                                                         protect the common interests of stockkeeping wholesalers of
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                 electrotechnical products. In 1995 it had 52 members, includ-
                                                                         ing various larger undertakings and numerous smaller whole-
                                                                         salers. In response to a complaint submitted in 1991, the
                                                                         Commission in 1999 adopted a decision in which it found
                                                                         that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC by entering
                                                                         into a collective exclusive dealing arrangement intended to
                                                                         prevent supplies to non-members of the FEG, on the basis of
                                                                         an agreement with the Nederlandse Agentenvereniging op
                                                                         Elektrotechnisch Gebied (‘NAVEG’) and of practices concerted
                                                                         with suppliers not represented in NAVEG. The Commission
                                                                         further found that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC
Action brought on 17 January 2000 by Nederlandse                         by directly and indirectly restricting the freedom of its
Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektro-                   members to determine their selling prices independently. On
technisch Gebied against the Commission of the European                  account of those infringements, a fine of EUR 4.4 million was
                          Communities                                    imposed on the applicant. The applicant seeks annulment of
                                                                         the decision on the following grounds. Since it took the
                                                                         Commission more than eight years to adopt that decision, it
                           (Case T-5/00)                                 infringed the principle that decisions must invariably be given
                                                                         within a reasonable period. Furthermore, the rights of the
                                                                         defence have been violated, in that the Commission bases
                         (2000/C 149/64)                                 various essential elements of its argument on documents
                                                                         which were not mentioned in the statement of objections. In
                                                                         addition, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                         infringed Article 81(1) EC in a number of respects. First, it
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         based its decision on an incorrect delineation of the relevant
                                                                         market. Second, it wrongly inferred from the available factual
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                material that the applicant had infringed the notification rules
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               by entering into a collective exclusive dealing arrangement
European Communities on 17 January 2000 by Nederlandse                   intended to prevent supplies to non-members of the FEG. It
Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotech-               also wrongly inferred from the factual material that, by
nisch Gebied (FEG), established in The Hague, represented by             concluding horizontal pricing agreements, FEG had infringed
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, of the law firm De Brauw            the notification rules. In the alternative, the applicant claims
Blackstone Westbroek NV, The Hague, with an address for                  that the Commission has infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue               No 17, by imposing on the applicant, in the light of the
Goethe.                                                                  circumstances of the case, a fine of EUR 4.4 million.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.2000.
— annul the Commission’s decision of 26 October 1999 (1)
    concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
    Treaty in Case IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve
    Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Ge-
    bied and Technische Unie;
— in the alternative, annul Article 5(1) of that decision;