CELEX: C1995/119/32
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 15 February 1995 by the International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-28/95)

No C 119/12         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13 . 5 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . order the defendants to pay the costs of the
                     of 23 February 1 995                                proceedings.
     in Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v.
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                          ( 95/C 119/29 )                            Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG, established
in Bremen ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Jürgen Rabe,
Rechtsanwalt of Hamburg and of the Brussels Bar, with an             Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk            Konrad against the Council of the European Union and the
& Prum, 13B Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                            Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: B. Smulders and J.                                            (Casé T-9/95 )
Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of Commission                                    ( 95/C 119/31 )
Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg
via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale                          (Language of the case: German)
of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH
to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court of First Instance               An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët,                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
R. García-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung,             Communities on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
Registrar, made an order on 23 February 1995, the                    Konrad, Löllbach (Federal Republic of Germany),
operative part of which is as follows:                               represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case        Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
      T-490/93, Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v. Commission               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
      of the European Communities, in order to enable the            Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
      Court of Justice to rule on the applications for
     annulment;                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 , the costs are reserved.                                          1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
                                                                         SLOM III compensation for the period from 1 July 1984
(M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                          to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 83 670,155 ,
(2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7. 1993 , p. 43 .                                together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                                                                     2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
Action brought on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler                    Commission and also stay the proceedings.
against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          (Case T-4/95 )
                          ( 95/C 119/30 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                     Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler,                  Action brought on 15 February 1995 by the International
Orsfeld ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                     Express Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the
Matthias H. François, Rechtsanwalt, of François, Neuhaus                     Commission of the European Communities
& Kollegen, Bitburg, with an address for service in                                        (Case T-28/95 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Annick Wurth, 100                                             ( 95/C 119/32 )
Boulevard de la Pétrusse .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         (Language of the case: English)
 1 . grant the applicant compensation for the period during          An action against the Commission of the European
      which she was required not to market produce;                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95         LJN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/ 13
Instance of the European Communities on 15 February                Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Groupe Origny, a
1995 by the International Express Carriers Conference,             limited liability company succeeding to the rights of the
established at 9 Rue de la Terrassière, CH-1207 Geneva,            limited liability company Cedest, against the Commission of
Switzerland, represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery, of the                              the European Communities
Paris Bar, and by Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and Paris                                 ( Case T-38/95 )
Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue                                            ( 95/C 119/33
Guillaume .
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
— declare that the Commission's failure to define its              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     position within two months of receipt of the formal           Instance of the European Communities on 17 February
     request contained in the applicant's letter of 23             1995 by Groupe Origny, a limited liability company having
     November 1994 in relation to the aspects of the               its registered office in Paris ( France ) and succeeding to the
     complaint of 13 July 1988 , as supplemented thereafter,       rights of the limited liability company Cedest, represented
     concerning:                                                   by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch,
                                                                   8 Rue Zithe .
    — the application of Article 85 , and
    — the application of Article 86,                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
     is in breach of Article 175 of the Treaty,                    — annul in whole or in part Article 1 , Article 3 ( 3 ) ( a ) and
                                                                        Article     9.20    of     the  Commission   decision     of
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the application              30 November 1994, in so far as those articles concern
     even in the event that the Commission should take action           Cedest,
     which is held by the Court to render the action devoid of
     purpose .
                                                                   — in the alternative, amend Article 9 of the Commission
                                                                        decision so as to set aside or reduce substantially the fine
                                                                        imposed on Cedest,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
The Commission failed to define its position on both aspects
of the applicant's complaint within two months of being
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
requested to do so by the applicant, contrary to the second
paragraph of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty. Since the              The applicant relies on the following pleas in law in support
application was brought within the ensuing two-month               of its action :
period, it must be declared admissible.
                                                                    L Formal and procédural defects:
With regard to Article 85, the alleged disappearance (which
is denied) of the restriction of competition complained of               1 . Failure to attribute the complaints to individual
cannot entitle the Commission to dispense with the                           undertakings.
obligation to define its position. Although, in the context of
the procedure under Regulation No 17, it sent a letter to the            2. Extremely short period for examination of the file,
IECC under Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 , the                            which was not only disproportionate in relation to
Commission did not dismiss this aspect of the complaint.                     the duration of the investigation but was also
                                                                             unjustified by reason of the absence of any
With regard to Article 86, a letter stating that the                         urgency .
Commission is pursuing the matter cannot fulfil the
Commission's obligation to define its position. In view of               3 . Failure clearly to identify the documents on the file
the length of time which elapsed between the filing of the                   and to, provide a list of accessible documents .
complaint and the dispatch of the letter calling upon
the Commission to act, the applicant is entitled to obtain               4. Refusal to grant access to all documents on the
from the Commission either a reasoned decision stating that                  file .
an investigation of the complaint was unnecessary or a
provisional notice under Article 6 of Regulation                         5 . Refusal to grant the applicant a separate hearing.
No 99/63 .
                                                                   II. With regard to the practices complained of:
The application must therefore be declared to be
well-founded in regard to the aspects of the complaint                   1 . Lack of evidence : the Commission has failed to
concerning both Article 85 and Article 86 of the EEC
                                                                             establish the applicant's alleged involvement in the
Treaty.
                                                                             two agreements concerned relating to respect for
                                                                             home markets and the regulation of transfers of
                                                                             goods between France and Germany.