CELEX: C1999/086/57
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 28 January 1999 by Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-30/99)

27.3.1999           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 28 January 1999 by Bocchi Food
                                                                   Trade International GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                                     European Communities
Ð declare that, by failing to examine the complaint made
    pursuant to Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and                                   (Case T-30/99)
    to adopt a decision on the basis of that examination
    within two months after receiving from the applicant,                                 (1999/C 86/57)
    by letter of 15 September 1998, a formal request to
    that effect made in accordance with Article 175 of the
    EC Treaty, the Commission has infringed Article 175                          (Language of the case: German)
    of the EC Treaty;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs, including those           An action against the Commission of the European
    incurred by the applicant, even if the Court takes the         Communities was brought before the Court of First
    view that, following the institution of the proceedings,       Instance of the European Communities on 28 January
    the Commission has taken steps in the matter which             1999 by Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH, Bergisch
    render the action devoid of purpose.                           Gladbach (Germany), represented by Gert Meier,
                                                                   Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is a private company incorporated under              The applicant claims that the Court should:
German law. Its object is the production and marketing of
heat and energy and the provision of all services
connected therewith. It operates within and outside                1. order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
Germany. A significant majority interest in the applicant              its loss suffered through the competent authorities'
company is held by the Swedish power supplier,                         reducing its provisional reference quantity by applying
Vattenfall.
By letter of 15 September 1998 the applicant requested                 (a) the adjustment coefficient, and
the Commission, with reference to previous written
communications, to examine, pursuant to Articles 92 and
93 of the EC Treaty, the acquisition of Saarbergwerke AG               (b) the reduction coefficient;
and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH by Ruhrkohle AG, with a
view to ascertaining whether, as a result of and in
connection with that amalgamation, circumstances                   2. order the Commission, in so far as the applicant's
relating to aid had arisen which were compulsorily                     provisional reference quantity has been wrongly
notifiable. Although the applicant had expressly warned                reduced by applying the adjustment coefficient, to
the Commission of its intention to bring an action, the                compensate for that reduction by granting the
two-month period within which the Commission was                       applicant    additional    licences   in    the   future
required to act elapsed without any decision being issued              (compensation in kind);
which would have averted the claim of failure by the
Commission to act.
                                                                   3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that, once the Commission
became aware of the planned amalgamation in February
1998, it was under a duty not only to approve the
acquisition of Saarbergwerke in the light of Article 66 of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the ECSC Treaty but also, and in parallel, to carry out an
examination to determine whether aid existed within the
meaning of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty. However,
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
the Commission failed to carry out that examination.
                                                                   Case T-18/99 Cordis Obst- und Gemüsegrosshandel
                                                                   GmbH v. Commission.