CELEX: C2000/335/93
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-309/00: Action brought on 26 September 2000 by S.A. Cimenteries CBR against the Commission of the European Communities

25.11.2000            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/49
Action brought on 26 September 2000 by S.A. Cimente-                     Action brought on 6 October 2000 by Associazione delle
ries CBR against the Commission of the European Com-                     Cantine Sociali Venete e della Cantina dei Colli Berici
                            munities                                         against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-309/00)
                                                                                                  (Case T-315/00)
                        (2000/C 335/93)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 335/94)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 September 2000 by S.A.                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Cimenteries CBR, whose registered office is in Brussels,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by A. Vandencasteele and D. Waelbroeck, of the               European Communities on 6 October 2000 by Associazione
Brussels Bar.                                                            delle Cantine Sociali Venete e la Cantina dei Colli Berici,
                                                                         represented by Ivone Cacciavillani and Antonio Cimino, of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Venice and Padua Bars, with an address for service in
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission of 27 July            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I.
      2000 refusing to pay the applicant interest on the sum of
      5 485 000 Euros, the principal amount of a fine wrongly            The applicants claim that the Court should:
      imposed by the Commission on 3 May 1995, at a rate of
      7,25 % for the period between 3 May 1995 and 24 May                —     annul the contested provisions and accordingly order the
      2000 and a rate of 9,25 % for the period between 25 May                   defendant to produce the requisite documents (by lodging
      2000 and 27 July 2000;                                                    them with the Court Registry);
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 9 of its decision of 30 November 1994 in
Case IV (33.126 and 33.332) — Cement, the Commission
imposed a fine on the applicant for infringement of Article 85           The applicants in the present case challenge the refusal of the
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC).                                    defendant to allow access to a number of document concerning
                                                                         the procedure determining compulsory distillation of table
The amount of that fine was reduced by judgment of the Court             wines for the year 1993/1994.
of First Instance of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95
and others (the ‘Cement’ judgment)
                                                                         The applicants observe that the validity of the compulsory
Following that judgment, the applicant requested the defendant           distillation in question, as a Community mechanism for
to repay the difference between the fine imposed and the fine            intervening on the wine market, has been at the heart of
as reduced by the Court of First Instance, plus interest on that         various disputes, which are still pending, before the ordinary
sum. The defendant subsequently repaid the principal amount              courts of law, administrative courts and the Community
but did not pay interest on that amount.                                 judicature.
The applicant regards that refusal as an implied decision                In support of their claims, the applicants allege infringement of
refusing to pay the necessary interest and challenges the                Article 1 of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February
lawfulness of that decision.                                             1994 on public access to Commission documents (1). In the
                                                                         present case, the conduct of the Commission is essentially
In support of its action the applicant relies on:                        evasive. After officially declaring, in the course of a dispute
                                                                         before the Court of Justice, that it had taken the definite
—     breach of the obligation to take the measures necessary            decision to impose on Italy the compulsory distillation
      to execute the judgment of the Court of First Instance, as         12 150 000 hectolitres, on the basis of objective reasons, it
      provided for in Article 233 EC;                                    did not allow private individuals access to the documents and
                                                                         the travaux préparatoires in order to determine the existence
—     infringement of the principle of proportionality;
                                                                         of those objective reasons and to assess them.
—     infringement of the principle prohibiting undue enrich-
      ment;
                                                                         (1) OJ 1994 L 46, p. 58.
—     infringement of the fundamental right to equal treatment.