CELEX: C1999/100/41
Language: en
Date: 1999-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-28/99: Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Sigma Tecnologie di Rivestimento SRL against the Commission of the European Communities

10.4.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/21
protection of legitimate expectations and of the duty to            The complaint relates to the following conduct:
have inasmuch as he was refused promotion in 1998
despite the fact that, by virtue of his name having already
been entered on the list of officials most deserving of             Ð concertation between PSA and its concessionaires at
promotion in 1997, his entitlement to promotion should                   national and local level with a view to impeding
have been given priority over that of other officials.                   parallel imports;
                                                                    Ð obstruction of supplies by the exertion of pressure of
He also pleads infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff                foreign concessionaires to dissuade them from
Regulations, inasmuch as the appointing authority did not                supplying vehicles to end-users domiciled in France;
undertake, in a reasonable and duly justified way, an
examination of the comparative merits of the eligible
candidates.                                                         Ð use of the so-called model-year date' sales technique;
                                                                         and
                                                                    Ð the existence of measures accompanying so-called
                                                                         Balladur' State premiums.
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission failed, both
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Garage Trabisco                in its summary of the complaint and in the presentation of
SA against the Commission of the European Communities               its statement of reasons, with a view to justifying the lack
                                                                    of a sufficient Community interest, to demonstrate the
                       (Case T-26/99)                               partitioning of the markets and the obstruction of
                      (1999/C 100/40)                               supplies, such as the concerted efforts made to prevent
                                                                    access to the parallel imports market by the misuse of
                                                                    the national proedures. Consequently, the defendant
                                                                    institution has failed to fulfil its obligations relating to the
               (Language of the case: French)                       examination of complaints submitted in competition
                                                                    matters.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
1999 by Garage Trabisco SA, established at Cognac
(France), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
Paris Bar,with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.             Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Sigma Tecnologie
                                                                    di Rivestimento SRL against the Commission of the
                                                                                        European Communities
                                                                                            (Case T-28/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                           (1999/C 100/41)
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 16/                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
    17 November 1998;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
                                                                    1999 by Sigma Tecnologie di Rivestimento SRL, whose
                                                                    registered office is in Lonato (Italy), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo
                                                                    Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an adress for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er 51.
By its action, the applicant company contests the decision
of the Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by it
concerning the steps taken by the Peugeot Group (PSA)               The applicant claims that the Court should:
and certain of its concessionaires to impede its activities as
an independent agent/reseller, pursuant to an illegal
agreement between PSA and its concessionaires covering              Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(1998) 3117
the whole of the territory of France.                                    final of 21 October 1998 (Case IV/35.691/E-4
 ---pagebreak--- C 100/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
    Fernwärmetechnik         Kartell),   as     amended      by      Vienna, Austria, represented by Dr Stefan Köck,
    Commission Decision K(1998) 3415 final of                        Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber,
    6 November 1998 (Case IV/35.691 Ð Vorisolierte                   Vienna, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    Rohre), in so far as it refers to the applicant, holding         Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
    it liable for participation in the overall agreement';
                                                                     The apllicant claims that the Court should:
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the decision in so
    far as it sets the applicant's fine at ECU 400 000, or
    substantially reduce the fine;                                   1.    annul that part of the Commission's decision,
                                                                           notified to the applicant by letter (D 18497) of
                                                                           11 December 1998,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     1.1. by which the Commission rejected the applicant's
                                                                           application to the Commission to declare that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                           Republic of Austria had infringed Article 90(1) in
                                                                           conjunction with Article 86 of the EC Treaty,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-9/99 HFB Holding and Others v.                                   Ð by placing Mobilkom in a more favourable
Commission (1).                                                                position than the applicant, with respect both to
                                                                               determination of the amount and to the terms of
                                                                               payment of the concession fee, and
The applicant pleads in particular that the Commission
has failed to state adequate grounds in relation to the                    Ð be giving preference to the third network
applicant's participation in the infringement at issue, and                    operator, Connect, over the applicant when
has erroneously assessed the role played by the European                       determining the amount of the concession fee,
District Heating Pipe Manufacturers' Association in the                        and
context of the overall agreement.
                                                                     1.2. by which the Commission rejected the applicant's
Concerning the reduction in the basic amount of the fine                   application,
owing to the secondary role played by the applicant in the
infringement, the applicant maintains that only in the case                Ð to the Commission to require the Republic
of Sigma is it possible to dispute the company's                               of Austria to create equal conditions of
membership of the contact grop for the market concerned,                       competition for mobile telephone operators, by
or at least knowledge that it formed part of an overall                        prescribing additional concession fees or partially
agreement, whereas Ke-Kelit had never denied such                              waiving concession fees; and
knowledge.
(1) OJ C 86, 27.3.1999, p. 24.                                       2.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                     The applicant, which entered on the Austrian market in
                                                                     October 1996 as the second operator of a GSM mobile
Action brought on 22 February 1999 by max.mobil.                     communications network after Mobilkom Austria AG, a
Telekommunikation          Service     GmbH      against    the      company predominantly owned by the State, lodged a
          Commission of the European Communities                     complaint with the Commission in October 1997. It
                                                                     complained that it had been treated less favourably than
                         (Case T-54/99)
                                                                     Mobilkom Austria and the third mobile network operator
                        (1999/C 100/42)                              Connect Austria, which had in the meantime entered the
                                                                     market in August 1997, with respect to the determination
                                                                     and terms of collection of the fees for GSM concessions,
               (Language of the case: German)                        and submitted that there had been a breach of
                                                                     Article 90(1) in conjunction with Article 86 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on February 1999                By the decision contained in the Commission's letter of
by max.mobil. Telekommunikation Service GmbH, of                     11 December 1998 the applicant was assured that its