CELEX: C2000/135/39
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-46/00: Action brought on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen against the Commission of the European Communities

13.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— declare that the Commission infringed essential procedural
     requirements in the consultation process;                                                   (Case T-46/00)
— find that EEC Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December                                            (2000/C 135/39)
     1999 does not mention abuse of economic dependance as
     one of the restrictions on competition set out in Article 4,
     even in the event of cumulative effect;                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
— annul Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December 1999;                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                European Communities on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen,
                                                                        a company incorporated under Norwegian law, having its
                                                                        registered office in Norway, represented by K. Storalm, of the
                                                                        Stavanger (Norway) Bar, J.P. Hoekstra, of the Amsterdam
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (Netherlands) Bar, and G. Vanquathem, of the Bar of Knokke-
                                                                        Heist (Belgium), with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of M. Michel, 48 Avenue de la Gare.
The applicants challenge Regulation EC No 2790/99 of
22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices (1). This is a block exemption regulation in that it is
intended to cover all forms of ‘vertical’ practice in all sectors       — declare the action to be admissible and well founded;
of the economy. It is also intended to cover exclusive and
selective car distribution if the regulation currently in force in      — consequently,           annul       Commission         Decision
the car sector is not renewed when it expires.                              SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999;
                                                                        — make the appropriate order as to costs.
In support of their application, the applicants argue, inter alia,
that the consultations leading up to adoption of the regulation
were not carried out in a manner consistent with the spirit of
the Treaty, and more specifically Article 83(1), which requires         Pleas in law and main arguments
a minimum level of transparency when dealing with objections
and a minimum degree of explanation as to why they are
dismissed. In general, the true impact of the modernisation             The Netherlands authorities brought proceedings against the
programme on competition in terms of the fate of small and              vessel M600 (the property of the applicant) on the ground that
medium-sized enterprises and their significantly increased              it was using illegal nets and deliberately fishing for sole.
economic dependance was passed over silently and hidden
from the decision-making and consultative bodies to whom
that very information was indispensable.                                The applicant contends that the Netherlands authorities are
                                                                        doing all within their power to keep certain Norwegian fishing
                                                                        vessels out of Community waters and thereby to create
The applicants further state that the renewal of the contested          additional fishing opportunities for, in particular, vessels flying
regulation was presented as merely being a procedural matter            the Dutch flag. The applicant claims that the Netherlands
which did not justify or effect any amendment to the Treaty.            authorities have been pressurising the Commission to with-
However, in the view of the applicants, the regulation in               draw the fishing licences for the aforementioned Norwegian
question changes the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. It       vessels.
calls into question certain issues which were already settled,
in particular as regards the retrospective consequences of
                                                                        The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
automatic invalidity which remains the formal position under
                                                                        SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999 withdrawing the fish-
Article 81(2) and the principle of prohibition which also
remains the formal position under Article 81(1).                        ing licence and special fishing permit of the fishing vessel
                                                                        ‘Kvitsjoen’ and providing that no fishing licence or special
                                                                        fishing permit may be issued to it before 30 June 2000.
(1) OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21.
                                                                        Relations between the European Communities and Norway
                                                                        are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 50/1999 of
                                                                        18 December 1998 laying down, for 1999, certain measures
                                                                        for the conservation and management of fishery resources
                                                                        applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicant alleges:                                                   — misuse of powers: the importation of EU/OCT sugar and
                                                                             mixtures from the OCTs arises directly from the OCT
— infringement of the rights of defence and the principle of                 decision, and is a result intended by the Council;
    open administration;
                                                                         — the declaration that Article 308d of Regulation
— infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Articles                 No 2454/93 is applicable is incompatible with Article 109
    5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2943/95;                                   of the OCT decision.
— infringement of the principle of proportionality;
— misuse of power.
                                                                         Action brought on 1 March 2000 by British Steel Limited
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European                                                   (Case T-48/00)
                           Communities
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/41)
                          (Case T-47/00)
                         (2000/C 135/40)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 2000 by British Steel
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Limited, represented by John Pheasant and Matthew Readings,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods                   Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
(Free Zone) NV, a company incorporated under the laws of
Aruba, established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by G. van
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.                  — annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 8 December
                                                                             1999, C(1999) 4154 final;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul Article 1 of this decision;
— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 of
    15 November 1999 introducing safeguard measures in                   — annul the fine imposed in respect of Article 1;
    respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures
    of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30                — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in respect of
    and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and                 Article 1;
    territories (OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11);
                                                                         — order the Commission to repay the fine or, in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     alternative, the amount by which it is reduced together
                                                                             with interest on the whole or, as the case may be, such
                                                                             amount by which it is reduced from the date of payment by
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                         British Steel to the date of repayment by the Commission;
— Regulation No 2423/1999 is incomprehensible; at any                    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs in these
    rate, it contains an insufficient statement of reasons: in               proceedings.
    support of the safeguard measures, the Commission cites
    difficulties in respect of which no details are given;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— manifest errors with regard to the facts;
— the fixing of a minimum price for imports of EU/OCT                    In the contested decision the Commission held that several
    sugar from the OCTs constitutes an infringement of Article           producers of seamless steel tubes infringed Article 81 (1) EC
    109(1) and (2) of the OCT decision;                                  and imposed a fine, inter alia, on the applicant.