CELEX: C1997/166/46
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-31 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 April 1997 by Horeca-Wallonie against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-85/97)

No C 166/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997                  works contract was awarded for the supply of monobloc
by Patrick Rousseaux, residing in Brussels, represented by             concrete sleepers on the basis of a qualification procedure
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for               devised by the SNCB . One of the grounds of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson               applicant's complaint is the fact that the rejection of its
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                             tender, for failure to meet technical requirements, was
                                                                       based on the misconception that the monobloc sleepers
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decided on by the SNCB and the duo-bloc sleepers offered
                                                                       by the applicant are not perfectly substitutable . According
                                                                       to the applicant company, the contested decision closing
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      the file endorsed that incorrect technical assessment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    The Commission based its decision not to proceed on the
                                                                       lack of any Community interest in bringing an action
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   against the Belgian State for failure to fulfil its obligations .
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    In support of its contentions, the applicant alleges a
                                                                       breach of essential procedural requirements, in that, first,
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           the Commission did not hear its views at any stage and,
                                                                       second, it did not specify the legislative basis for its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    decision not to proceed with an investigation. Specifically,
                                                                       in giving a decision on the contract in question, the
                                                                       Commission cannot rely in abstracto on Community law
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 relating to public works contracts without taking account
Case T-16/97 C ).                                                      of the rules governing competition . In that regard, the
                                                                       contested decision should be declared unlawful under
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  Article 86 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 90 (2 )
                                                                       thereof. The applicant stresses that the SNCB enjoys a
                                                                       monopoly for operation of the Belgian railway system,
                                                                       that it has been granted authority for type-approval of the
                                                                       equipment used in its network and that the technical
                                                                       specifications at issue in these proceedings are
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by Société Anonyme de                   unfavourable only to imported products .
Traverses en Béton Armé ( Sateba) against Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                       Finally, the applicant alleges an incorrect assessment of the
                          ( Case T-83/97)                              facts and a misuse of powers . It states in that connection
                            ( 97/C 166/45 )                            that, in the field of competition, where circumstances
                                                                       constituting an infringement exist, the Commission may
                 (Language of the case: French)                        impose a sanction of an economic nature on the
                                                                       undertakings concerned. In its view, it was only in order
An action against the Commission of the European                       to evade the application of Community law in this area
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      that the Commission adopted a decision not to proceed in
Instance on 1 April 1997 by Societe Anonyme de Traverses               respect of acts imputable to the SNCB, at the same time
en Beton Arme ( Sateba ), whose registered office is in                concluding that there was no Community interest in
Paris, represented by Jacques Manseau, of the Paris Bar,               taking proceedings against the Belgian State. However, by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       referring to the Belgian State rather than to the SNCB, the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                    defendant is endeavouring to make its decision
                                                                        unchallengeable by virtue of the settled case-law
                                                                        concerning the application of Article 169 of the Treaty.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
 should :
— annul Commission Decision of 20 January 1997,
     Reference No XV/B3/MM/(96 ) D/2312,
                                                                        Action brought on 3 April 1997 by Horeca-Wallonie
 — order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                               ( Case T-85/97)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                 97/C 166/46 )
 The applicant, a French company operating in the railway                              (Language of the case: French)
 infrastructure sector, contests the Commission decision
 closing the file on the complaint it lodged against Societe
 Nationale des Chemins de Fer Beiges ( SNCB ). That                     An action against the Commission of the European
 complaint concerned the conditions under which a public                Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 166/23
Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1997                 Action brought on 4 April 1997 by G. Van Dyck against
by Horeca-Wallonie, whose registered office is at Namur                     the Commission of the European Communities
( Belgium ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the                                           ( Case T-87/97)
Luxembourg Bar, and by Jean Materne and Alain Bernard,
                                                                                               ( 97/C 166/47)
of the Liege Bar ( Belgium ), with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Gilles Bouneou, 15                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Avenue du Bois .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 April 1997
                                                                     by G. Van Dyck, residing in Wuustwezel ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by G. Vandersanden and M.-A. Marx, of the
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     Union contained in the letter of 24 September 1996              the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
     addressed to the Belgian State as represented by its
     Minister for Foreign Affairs,                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     — declare the present application admissible and well­
                                                                         founded,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     — consequently, annul the decision of the appointing
                                                                         authority of 21 June 1996 refusing to reconsider the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      applicant's grading in accordance with Article 31 ( 2 )
                                                                         of the Staff Regulations and, in so far as may be
                                                                         necessary, annul the decision of 27 December 1996
The Federation of Flotel, Restaurant and Cafe Proprietors                rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
of Wallonia challenges the Commission's declaration that                 9 September 1996,
a draft decree of the Wallonia Government concerning
social tourism in Wallonia which provides that 'recognized           — order the European Commission to take all
associations' within the meaning of Article 2 thereof may                appropriate steps to comply with the judgment to be
be entitled to subsidies while reserving up to 49 % of the               delivered in the case, so as to provide for the
actual occupation of each hotel to guests who do not fall                applicant's remuneration to be increased retroactively
within the scope of social tourism is compatible with the                and for the payment of default interest at the rate of
common market and its corresponding refusal to initiate                  8 % from the date of the applicant's entry into service,
the procedure provided for in Article 93 (2 ) of the EC
Treaty. The applicant points out in this regard that, in its         — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
present form, the wording of the draft allows social
tourism centres to compete directly and unfairly with                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
private sector undertakings.
                                                                     — Infringement of Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                         The Commission failed, when fixing the applicant's
It claims that the figures referred to by the Commission in
                                                                         grade, to take into account the special circumstances
the letter containing the contested decision came solely
                                                                         prevailing — namely, the applicant's training and
from the Wallonia authority and do not correspond to the
facts and are inaccurate .                                               experience — and therefore failed to adopt a grading
                                                                         decision within the meaning of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                         Staff Regulations .
The applicant considers that it should be allowed to                 — Breach of the principle of non-discrimination
submit a much more accurate analysis of the level of
planned subsidy, which would be in addition to the                       The Commission failed to observe the principle of
financial and fiscal structural advantages which social                  non-discrimination, in that it took account, when
tourism centres already enjoy as non-profit-making                       appointing members of the temporary staff to
associations .
                                                                         established posts, of the professional experience which
                                                                         those staff members had acquired at the time of their
                                                                         assignment to temporary posts, but failed to have
It therefore requests that the procedure for examining                   regard to the experience and training of probationer
State aid should be initiated on the basis of Article 93 ( 2 )           officials .
of the Treaty so that the interested parties, including the
applicant, can submit observations on the basis of a file            — Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
made available to it and containing relevant information,                interests of officials and of the principle of sound
in particular statistical and financial information .                    administration
                                                                         By replying in French to the complaint lodged in the
                                                                         Dutch language, and by failing to inform the