CELEX: C2000/020/44
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-219/99: Action brought on 1 October 1999 by British Airways PLC against the Commission of the European Communities

22.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 20/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 1999 L 202, p. 1)
                                                                          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                        of 8 October 1999                                 order on 25 November 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
   in Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          1. Implementation of the measure of the European Parliament of
(Official — Period within which an action must be brought                     14 September 1999, by which the Parliament adopted the
                  — Manifest inadmissibility)                                 interpretation of Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure proposed by
                                                                              the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is suspended;
                          (2000/C 20/42)
                                                                          2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, Körnerstrasse 5, 10785
Berlin, v European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for annulment of the decision of the
selection board in Competition PE/86/A refusing to admit the
applicant to the written tests in that competition and                    Action brought on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
requesting that the applicant be allowed to take part in that             PLC against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                                               ties
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras;
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                                   (Case T-219/99)
1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                                    (2000/C 20/44)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
                                                                          PLC, represented by William Wood QC and Helen Davies, of
                                                                          Brick Court Chambers, London, and William Allan and Oliver
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Black, of Linklaters, Solicitors, London, with an address for
                            INSTANCE                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                      of 25 November 1999
in Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 Gaulle v European Parliament
                                                                          — annul the contested decision in its entirety;
(Application for the adoption of interim measures —
Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision in its                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
own Rules of Procedure — Political group — Admissibility
  — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2000/C 20/43)
                                                                          The primary relief sought is the annulment of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        mission’s Decision declaring that since 1992 the applicant
                                                                          (BA) has infringed Article 82 EC by operating systems of
In Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez, residing in Montpel-            commission and other incentives with the travel agents from
lier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris, represent-       whom it purchases air travel agency services in the United
ed by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la                       Kingdom, systems which, by rewarding loyalty from the travel
Poissonnerie, Nice (France), v European Parliament (Agents:               agents and by discriminating between travel agents, have the
Gregorio Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and Hans Krück) —                 object and effect of excluding BA’s competitors from the UK
application for suspension of implementation of the decision              air transport market. Article 2 of the contested Decision
of the European Parliament dated 14 September 1999 con-                   imposed on BA a fine of £ 6,8 million for the alleged
cerning the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of                  infringements.
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/22                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
The application is made on the following grounds:                       the Middle Temple, by Messrs Ferdinard Kelly, 21 Bennets Hill,
                                                                        Birmingham, B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
— The Commission, having resigned en masse, is only author-
    ised to handle current business, which does not include
    the Decision;                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— The Decision was adopted under Regulation No 17 and
    should have been adopted (if adopted at all) under                  — annul the decision of the Commission in Case
    Regulation No 3975/87. This breach of an essential pro-                 IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle dated 16 June
    cedural requirement deprived BA of the procedural safe-                 1999;
    guards to which it was entitled. Moreover, in so far as the
    Decision affects routes between the United Kingdom and              — declare that the Commission is required under Article 233
    third countries, it is outside the powers of the Commission;            of the Treaty establishing the European Communities to
                                                                            take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment
— The Commission acted against BA alone, whereas all                        to be delivered;
    the European Airlines engaged in substantially similar
    practices;
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.
— The requisite nexus between the alleged market in which
    the Commission maintains that the abuse has occurred
    and the markets in which the Commission maintains that
    the harmful effects of such abuse are felt is lacking and           Pleas in law and main arguments
    therefore Article 82 cannot apply;
— The market in air travel agency services cannot be regarded           The applicant states that on 13 January 1998, pursuant to
    as the relevant product market in the present case. BA              Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62 the Commission gave
    submits that the appropriate market definition is the route         notice (1) that it intended to take a favourable position in
    or set of routes distributed through the travel agent.              respect of certain agreements notified to the Commission by
    Furthermore, the relevant geographic market is not, as the          Scottish and Newcastle PLC, by granting retroactive exemption
    Commission maintains, the UK, but is broader;                       pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. The agreements in question were
                                                                        the standard forms of leases, the subject of each of the leases
— Even if the relevant market is correctly identified, BA               being a fully fitted-out, on-licensed public house in United
    cannot been considered as being dominant in the market,             Kingdom with a tie for beer. Before taking a final decision on
    because it cannot act independently of its suppliers,               this matter, the Commission invited all interested parties to
    competitors or customers;                                           submit their observations.
— Even if BA were dominant in a properly-defined relevant
    market, its incentive agreements would not constitute an            On 12 March 1999, the applicant submitted observations
    abuse of its dominant position.                                     together with an expert’s report to the Commission. By the
                                                                        said observations objection was made to the proposal to grant
                                                                        Scottish and Newcastle retroactive or any exemption.
                                                                        On 16 June 1999, the Commission took a Decision relating to
                                                                        a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                        IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle) (the contested
                                                                        decision) (2). In its decision the Commission, overriding the
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Margaret Mary                      objections made in the said observations, granted Scottish and
McKenzie Campbell against the Commission of the Euro-                   Newcastle retroactive exemption to the notified agreements
                       pean Communities                                 commencing on 1 January 1985 until 31 December 2002.
                         (Case T-232/99)
                                                                        The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance on
                                                                        the grounds that in granting exemption to the notified
                          (2000/C 20/45)                                agreements the Commission:
                  (Language of the case: English)                       (a) failed properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish
                                                                            that the notified agreements do not fulfil the conditions of
                                                                            Article 81(3);
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Margaret                     (b) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision that the
Mary McKenzie Campbell, represented by Becket Bedford, of                   notified agreements fulfil the conditions of Article 81(3);