CELEX: C1998/234/66
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 May 1998 by Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-85/98)

C 234/34               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance           Action brought on 29 May 1998 by FeÂdeÂration
on the ground that in rejecting her complaint the                     Internationale de l'Automobile against the Commission of
Commission failed to properly investigate the question                                 the European Communities
whether her rights under Article 85 could be adequately                                      (Case T-85/98)
safeguarded by the national courts of the United Kingdom.
                                                                                              (98/C 234/66)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983
    on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to
    categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ L 173 of                       (Language of the case: English)
    30.6.1983, p. 5).
(2) OJ C 206 of 30.7.1993, p. 2.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1998
                                                                      by FeÂdeÂration Internationale de l'Automobile, represented
                                                                      by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Mark Hoskins, Craig
                                                                      Pouncey and Veronica Roberts, with an address for service
Action brought on 27 May 1998 by Frans Jacobs against                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 7
       the Commission of the European Communities                     Place du TheÂaÃtre.
                         (Case T-82/98)
                          (98/C 234/65)                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Ð declare the Commission decision adopted on or
                                                                          around 22 December 1997 to provide to members of
An action against the Commission of the European                          the press copies of the warning letters dated
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         19 December 1997 was unlawful and is therefore
Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 1998                       void; and
by Frans Jacobs, residing at Walshoutem (Belgium),
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq,
Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels              Ð make an order for nominal damages in the sum of one
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     hundred ECUs for non-pecuniary harm caused to the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange.                    applicant's reputation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Ð order that the Commission must make good the
                                                                          pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant as a result of
Ð annul the Commission's decision not to promote the                      the Commission's unlawful acts, namely, the leaking
     applicant to grade B 4 in the 1997 promotions                        of the warning letters to the press and the statements
     procedure;                                                           made to the press by Mr Van Miert;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Ð order that the Commission should pay interest at the
                                                                          annual rate of 8 % as from the date of judgment in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       these proceedings;
In support of his claim, the applicant maintains, first, that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
the contested decision is vitiated by the complete absence
of any statement of reasons, contrary to Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
He further states that, although he has been eligible for             The applicant in the present case (the FIA) is an
promotion since 1 May 1997, no staff report or any other              association declared in conformity with the French law of
report concerning his conduct, efficiency and ability has             1 July 1901 and enjoying consultative status at the
been drawn up as required by Article 43 of the Staff                  Council of Europe and at the United Nations. It is an
Regulations. The applicant considers that, in the absence             international federation of 143 national automobile clubs,
of such a report, the defendant was unable to make any                automobile associations, touring clubs and national
lawful assessment, on the same basis, of the comparative              federations for motoring and motor sport, representing
merits of the applicant and of those of his colleagues who            113 countries and over 100 million motorists. Through its
were eligible for promotion to grade B 4, and that the                Sports Division and its affiliated National Sporting
contested decision therefore disregards Article 45 of the             Authorities, the FIA lays down rules accepted throughout
Staff Regulations and the principles of equal treatment               the world as governing all categories of international
and non-discrimination.                                               motor sport for vehicles with four or more wheels. These
                                                                      rules are contained in the International Sporting Code. In
                                                                      addition, the FIA has an economic interest in certain
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/35
major motor sport championships held under its name,                       Action brought on 5 June 1998 by the International
including the Formula One Championship and the FIA                          Potash Company (IPC) against the Council of the
world Rally Championship.                                                                   European Union
                                                                                             (Case T-87/98)
On 22 July 1994, the FIA notified its Statutes and                                            (98/C 234/67)
International Sporting Code to the Commission for
negative clearance or exemption under Article 85 of the
                                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
Treaty. On 5 September 1997, the applicant and Formula
One Administration Limited (FOA) notified for the same
purpose certain agreements concerning the FIA Formula                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
One World Championship. Another agreement between                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
FIA and International Sportsworld Communications                      Communities on 5 June 1998 by the International Potash
Limited (ISC) was also notified, relating to the                      Company (IPC), represented by Jean-FrancËois Bellis and
commercialisation of all sound recordings and moving                  Richard Luff, with an address for service in Luxembourg
picture images pertaining to certain FIA Championships,               at the Chambers of A. F. Brausch, 8 Rue Zithe.
other than the Formula One Championship. After having
received these notifications, the Director-General of
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
competition sent to the applicant a letter and annex
containing a preliminary statement of the objections to the
FIA's rules and to the agreement governing the Formula                Ð annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 449/
One Championship. On the same date similar letters were                    98 of 23 February 1998 amending Regulation (EEC)
sent by the Director-General to FOA and ISC. The events                    No 3068/92 in respect of definitive anti-dumping
with which this application is concerned involve an illegal                duties on imports of potassium chloride originating in
course of conduct by the Commission after the sending of                   Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
these three letters.                                                       p. 15) in so far as it imposes a specific duty on
                                                                           potassium chloride exported by the applicant; and
According to the applicants, the illegal course of conduct
of which complaint is made concerns:                                  Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð the making of a series of highly prejudicial public
    statements, directly attributed to the Commissioner for
    competition, and widely reported in the press,                    The applicant is a Russian company which exports
    expressing the Commissioner's view that the FIA is                potassium chloride produced in Russia and Belarus by the
    guilty of the gravest infringements of EC competition             following production companies which are its
    rules, even though the FIA had not been given the                 shareholders: Production Amalgamation Belaruski', PLC
    opportunity to be heard and the Commission had not                Silinit' and PLC Uralaki'.
    made a decision on the merits;
                                                                      The present application is directed against the
Ð the disclosure to the press, in breach of the obligations           regulation (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
    of professional secrecy and confidentiality, by a                 imports of potassium chloride originating in Belarus,
    member of the Commission's staff of (inter alia)                  Russia and Ukraine.
    the abovementioned letter to the FIA from the
    Director-General of competition, describing alleged               By imposing an anti-dumping equal to a fixed amount in
    infringements of the EC competition rules, together               ECU per tonne or to the difference between a minimum
    with an annex to the letter, giving guidance on                   price and the net, free-at-Community-frontier price per
    changes considered necessary on the FIA's part (and               tonne, whichever is the higher, the Community institutions
    the equivalent letters sent to FOA and ISC in so far as           have infringed Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
    they relate to the FIA's activities); and                         No 384/96 (2) which provides that the amount of the anti-
                                                                      dumping duty is not to exceed the margin of dumping
                                                                      established but should be less than the margin if such
Ð the continuing failure by the Commission and its                    lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the
    servants to take any effective action to rectify the              Community industry.
    situation or mitigate the highly damaging and
    prejudicial effects of these acts upon the FIA.
                                                                      By adopting a specific duty in addition to the variable
                                                                      duty, the Community institutions have also infringed
The applicant submits that this way of acting by the                  Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European
Commission is to be considered as an infringement of                  Community and the principle of proportionality since the
Articles 214 of the EC Treaty and 20(1) and (2) of                    measures go beyond what is necessary to obtain the
Regulation (EEC) 17/62, as well as of the principle of                objective pursued, namely the elimination of the dumping.
good administration.
                                                                      Finally, the Council has infringed Article 190 of the Treaty
                                                                      establishing the European Community by failing to