CELEX: C2001/108/06
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-24/01 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities

C 108/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      as meaning that the application of the system introduced
      by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
      notification of individual reference quantities for pro-           —     The Court of First Instance manifestly erred in law by
      ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among              having regard exclusively to the conditions of free
      its producers by the Member State of the global quantity                 competition: where contracts are concluded at the level
      which that State is guaranteed?                                          of prices on the world market, the burden of proof with
                                                                               regard to free competition must be less onerous. There is
(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be                      no reason to adhere to the clearly formalistic rule
      interpreted as meaning that no official notification of                  requiring competition between at least three undertakings
      individual reference quantities need be given to producers,              independent of each other if that will not lead to markedly
      or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity               different results. The Court of First Instance therefore
      exclude individual notification to those producers?                      displayed an erroneous conception of the law in failing
                                                                               to attach primary importance to the condition relating to
                                                                               the world market price, or at least in not allowing that
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                                condition to influence its assessment of the burden of
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                                 proof with regard to free competition.
                                                                         —     The Court of First Instance displayed an erroneous
                                                                               conception of the law in ruling that the principle of free
                                                                               competition was not complied with at the time when the
                                                                               riders to the contracts were entered into:
Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain                            —     Community law does not require three offers to be
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November                                     made in respect of each contract concluded;
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases
T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glen-
core Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European                              —     in arriving at its conclusion concerning the require-
                          Communities                                                ment of free competition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                                     laid down a rule lacking any foundation as regards
                                                                                     the objective and purpose of both Council Decision
                        (Case C-24/01 P)                                             91/658/EEC (1) (‘the Decision’) and Commission
                                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1897/92 (2) (‘the Regulation’).
                                                                                     Neither of those acts requires, for the purposes of
                        (2001/C 108/06)                                              approval pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation,
                                                                                     that each contract must involve offers from at least
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                               two other independent suppliers which must be
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                         comparable to the offer accepted;
ties (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93,
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                —     without making any express statement to that effect,
M.-J. Jonczy and H. van V1iet) was brought before the Court                          the Court of First Instance nevertheless appears to
of Justice of the European Communities on 22 January 2001                            require each supplier to comply with the obligation
by Glencore Grain Ltd, represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van                      imposed on the Russian authorities, in their capacity
Zuuren, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                        as the recipient of the loan, requiring consideration,
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo Hammer.                                       ‘upon being officially notified ... of the new contrac-
                                                                                     tual terms ..., [of] the responses, favourable or
                                                                                     unfavourable, given by at least three independent
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                          undertakings’. That rule was laid down solely in
                                                                                     Annex 2-A to the loan agreement concluded by the
—     rule that, in its judgment of 8 November 2000, the                             Community. That subsequent shifting of obligations
      Court of First Instance infringed Community law and/or                         from one party to the other is wrong in law, since
      procedural rules;                                                              rules of which third parties (such as Glencore in the
                                                                                     present case) are unaware cannot be invoked against
—     rule that the Court of First Instance should have awarded                      those third parties;
      the damages applied for, and accordingly refer the
      case back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration, or alternatively itself award the appellant               —     the Court of First Instance erred in its determination
      the damages sought;                                                            of the case by failing to take into account the
                                                                                     Commission’s own administrative practice and the
—     allow, on appeal, the claims made by the appellant.                            obligations flowing therefrom;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 108/5
      —      the Court of First Instance displayed an incorrect         —     refer the application for damages back to the Court of
             conception of the law by incorrectly weighing the                First Instance in order for the case to be argued and for
             evidence adduced with regard to free competition.                that application to be allowed;
             The Court of First Instance should have found that
             the Commission had obtained evidence of 7 written          —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
             offers and that 5 of those 7 offers led to the                   action and all the costs incurred by the appellant.
             conclusion of separate contracts.
—     Infringement of Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the Court of First Instance, on account of the failure
      by that Court to take evidence of its own motion from             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
      witnesses.                                                        Case C-24/01 P (1).
—     The Court of First Instance should have awarded the
                                                                        (1) See p. 4 of this Official Journal.
      damages applied for, and the case should therefore be
      referred back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration; alternatively, the Court of Justice should
      itself award those damages to the appellant.
(1) OJ 1991 L 362, p. 89.
(2) OJ 1992 L 191, p. 22.                                               Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                                    (Case C-30/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 108/08)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Appeal brought on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January
Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on                 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
8 November 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court                      represented by Mr R. Wainwright, acting as Agent, with an
of First Instance of the European Communities in Cases                  address for service in Luxembourg.
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Compagnie Continentale
(France) and the Commission of the European Communi-                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                ties
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing in respect of Gibraltar to adopt the
                        (Case C-25/01 P)                                      laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                              to comply with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June
                                                                              1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
                         (2001/C 108/07)                                      administrative provisions in relation to the classification,
                                                                              packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) as
                                                                              amended by Directive 88/302/EEC (2), Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                        91/410/EEC (3), Directive 92/32/EEC (4), Directive 92/69/
2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  EEC (5), Directive 93/21/EEC (6), Directive 93/67/EEC (7)
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-485/93,                            Directive 93/72/EEC (8), Directive 93/101/EC (9), Directive
T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between L. Dreyfus & Cie                       93/105/EC (10), Directive 94/69/EC (11), Directive 96/54/
S.A., Glencore Grain Ltd, Compagnie Continentale (France)                     EC (12) and Directive 97/69/EC (13), Council Directive
and the Commission of the European Communities was                            87/18/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the harmonisation
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  of the laws, regulations and administrative practice
ties on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie Continentale (France),                   relating to the application of good laboratory practice
represented by P.V.F. Bos and P. Chabrier, with an address for                and verification of their application for tests on chemical
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue                     substances (14), Council Directive 93/12/EEC of 23 March
Carlo Hammer.                                                                 1993 relating to the sulphur content of certain liquid
                                                                              fuels (15) as amended by Directive 98/70/EC (16), Council
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   Directive 79/113/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                              approximation of the laws in the Member States relating
                                                                              to the determination of the noise emission of construction
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                plant and equipment (17) as amended by Directive
      8 November 2000;                                                        81/1051/EEC (18) and Directive 85/405/EEC(19), Council
                                                                              Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 1 April 1993;                        approximation of the laws in the Member States relating