CELEX: C1995/137/58
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Van Megen Sports Group BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-49/95)

3 . 6 . 95               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 137/23
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Syndicat National                  Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Van Megen Sports
de l'lndustrie Cimentiere ( SFIC ) v. Commission of the                  Group BV against the Commission of the European
                       European Communities                                                          Communities
                           ( Case T-36/95 )                                                       ( Case T-49/95 )
                             ( 95/C 137/57 )                                                        ( 95/C 137/58 )
                    (Language of the case: French                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                         An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                      Instance of the European Communities on 21 February
1995 by the Syndicat National de l'lndustrie Cimentiere                  1995 by Van Megen Sports Group BV, whose registered
( SFIC ), whose registered office is in Paris, represented by            office is in Eindhoven (Netherlands ), represented by A. W.
Edouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland, of the Paris Bar,              Willems, Boskamp & Willems Chambers, Eindhoven, with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                an address for service in Luxembourg at the Registry of the
of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde.                                       Court of First Instance .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul in whole or in part, Articles 1 , 2 , 3 ( 2 ), 4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ), declare null and void the Commission's Decision of
      5 and 9 of the Commission 's Decision of 30 November
                                                                         21 December 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
      1994 in so far as those articles concern the SFIC,                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/32.948 — IV/34.590 :
                                                                         Tretorn and others ) (*).
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In support of its application the applicant puts forward the             Breach of essential procedural requirements and/or of a rule
following pleas in law:                                                  of law which must be complied with when applying the
                                                                         Treaty.
  I. Breaches of formal and procedural requirements :
                                                                         In its abovementioned decision the Commission imposed a
       1 . During the administrative procedure prior to the              fine on the applicant on the ground that it infringed
           adoption of the Decision: the applicant maintains in          Article 85 ( 1 ) by participating in the implementation in the
           particular that the statement of objections failed to         Netherlands of the reporting and investigation of parallel
           comply with the obligation to specify individually            imports in order to enforce Tretorn Sports Ltd's policy of
           the objections raised and the evidence tendered               preventing parallel imports and exports .
           against it and also that it was unable to obtain full
           access to the file .                                          The applicant considers that the conclusion reached by the
                                                                         Commission in its decision cannot be supported by the
       2 . As regards the adoption of the Decision: the                  evidence available to it, that that conclusion is insufficiently
           applicant considers that the Decision contains                reasoned by the Commission and that insufficient
           several defects relating to the circumstances of its          arguments are given justifying ( the level of the ) actual
           adoption, to its form and to the procedure                    penalty ( in proportion to that of the other parties
           followed :                                                    concerned ).
            ( a ) breach of the principle of collegiality;                (') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 45 .
            ( b ) use of excluded documents :
            ( c ) condemnation of the applicant on the basis of
                  objections not expressly mentioned in the
                  statement of objections;                                Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Castle Cement Ltd
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
            ( d ) use of new evidence ;
                                                                                                   ( Case T-56/95 )
            ( e ) defective statement of reasons .                                                   ( 95/C 137/59 )
 II . Inadequate evidence : as regards both the charge of an
       agreement to respect home markets and the other                                    (Language of the case: English)
       infringements charged, the Commission has not proved
       to the requisite legal standard that the applicant, as             An action against the Commission of the European
       such, was involved , or that the conduct at the factual            Communities was brought before the Court of First
       level that was attributable to it exceed the lawful bounds         Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
       of its functions as a trade association and/or approved            1995 by Castle Cement Ltd represented by Mr Nicholas
       statistical body .                                                 Forwood , Mr John Cook, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
                                                                          Boite Postale 39 , L-2010 Luxembourg.