CELEX: C2001/095/30
Language: en
Date: 2001-03-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-2/01: Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC) against the Commission of the European Communities

24.3.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 95/15
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Campina                            Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging Neder-
Melkunie B.V. against the Commission of the European                     landse Cementindustrie (VNC) against the Commission of
                            Communities                                                   the European Communities
                          (Case T-389/00)                                                         (Case T-2/01)
                           (2001/C 95/29)                                                        (2001/C 95/30)
                                                                                           (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging
European Communities on 27 December 2000 by Campina                      Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC), established at ’s-Herto-
Melkunie B.V., established at Rosmalen (Netherlands), rep-               genbosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel,
resented by Y. Van Gerven, F.P. Louis and R. Van der Vlies, of           T.M. Snoep and R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an
Messrs Stibbe Simont Monahan Duhot, lawyers, Brussels, with              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
C. Medernach, of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, lawyers,
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000
                                                                               refusing to pay VNC interest on the fine improperly
                                                                               imposed on it;
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2000
      refusing access to the correspondence between the Com-
      mission and the Belgian authorities, originating from the          —     order the Commission to pay to VNC interest at the rate
      Commission, and to the documents exchanged and the                       of 8,75 %, or at least at an appropriate rate, on
      minutes of meetings with the Belgian authorities or any                  100 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to
      other party concerned, regarding the dioxin crisis during                23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
      the period from 3 June to 9 July 1999;                                   6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
                                                                               2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to
                                                                               VNC;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Decision 94/90 and of Article 253 EC
                                                                         By judgment of 15 March 2000, the Court of First Instance
                                                                         annulled Commission Decision 94/815/EC in so far as that
      The reasons given for the contested decision do not show           decision imposed a fine on the applicant. On 23 November
      that the Commission carried out a separate examination             2000 the Commission transferred the amount of the fine paid
      of each of the documents requested so as to ascertain              by the applicant to a bank account maintained by the applicant,
      whether they related to its inspection and investigation           but not the interest demanded by the applicant.
      activities or its infringement procedure, or to the coming
      into existence of its Decisions 1999/368 of 4 June
      1999 and 1999/449 of 9 July 1999.                                  The applicant advances the following pleas in support of its
                                                                         application for annulment:
      The Commission has failed, contrary to Article 253 EC,
      to give separate reasons in respect of each individual             Infringement of Article 233 EC: by not paying interest on the
      document as to why the refusal to allow inspection is              amount of the fine, the Commission failed to take the necessary
      necessary in order to protect the public interest.                 measures to comply with the judgment.
—     Infringement of Decision 94/90 and breach of the                   Infringement of the general principles of proper adminis-
      principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission           tration: in so far as the Commission differentiates between
      has not given partial access to the documents.                     undertakings which pay the fine and undertakings which
                                                                         instead provide a bank guarantee, it contravenes general
                                                                         principles of proper administration, namely the principle of
                                                                         equal treatment, the duty of care and the principle of
                                                                         proportionality.
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.3.2001
Infringement of the right to put forward a proper defence: if           Pleas in law and main arguments
an undertaking on which the Commission has wrongly
imposed a fine is not entitled to claim lost interest, it is in
effect not in a position to mount a full defence against                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
decisions wrongly addressed to it by the Commission.                    T-2/01.
Unjustified enrichment.
Since there exists no generally applicable rate of interest, the
applicant bases its calculation of the interest on the percentage
charged by the Commission when fixing the amount to be
paid by undertakings which have delayed paying a justified
                                                                        Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale
fine.
                                                                        Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-5/01)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 95/32)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Nederlandse
Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 January 2001 by the Istituto
                          (Case T-3/01)                                 Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and
                                                                        Others, represented by Giovanni Pesce and Filippo Brunetti,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 95/31)
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        —     uphold the application and order the defendant to pay
                                                                              the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Neder-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
landse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV, established at ’s-Hertogen-
bosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel and
R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in          The present application is directed against the decision con-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                 tained in the letter dated 27 October 2000 (D13118), signed
                                                                        by the Director General of the European Commission, Direc-
                                                                        torate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, by which
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the applicant consortium of undertakings was informed that
                                                                        they had been excluded from the tendering procedure relating
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000               to the information campaign on food safety in Member States
      refusing to pay ENCI interest on the fine improperly              for 2000 and 2001.
      imposed on it;
                                                                        The rejection at issue is based on the lack of evidence of:
—     order the Commission to pay to ENCI interest at the rate
      of 8,75 %, or at least at an appropriate rate, on                 —     at least three years’ of experience in cooperation with a
      7 316 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to                        consumer organisation; and
      23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
      6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
      2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to           —     ability to involve the consumer organisations in the
      ENCI;                                                                   campaign.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            In support of its arguments, the applicant consortium alleges: