CELEX: C1999/226/63
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-115/99: Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système Européen Promotion 'SEP' against Commission of the European Communities

7.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants in the present case challenge Article 1(7)(b),             — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 of
second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of                       19 February 1999 in so far as the name Pays d’Auge/Pays
8th February 1999, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89                        d’Auge-Cambremer registers it;
on a code of conduct for computer reservations systems
(CRSs) (1). This article inserts a point (v) in Article 6(1)(b) of        — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
the amended regulation, according to which group of airlines
and/or subscribers is entitled to purchase data for common
processing.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit that, on the premise that it imposes
on operators of CRSs an obligation to supply Marketing                    Since 1998 the applicant has manufactured and sold sider, in
Information Data transfer (MIDT) only once, to group. of                  particular under the names ‘La Cidraie — grand cru du Pays
airlines having a common interest in the common processing                d’Auge’ and ‘Jacques Toy — grand cru cidre du Pays d’Auge’.
of those data, article 6(1)(b) infringes the principle of pro-            The applicant objects to the contested regulation or the ground
portionality. That is so for two reasons:                                 that its application would prohibit the applicant from selling
                                                                          its cider under the name ‘Pays d’Auge’.
— First, if that provision is to be construed as permitting
     airlines to form groups to purchase MIDT, irrespective of
     the size of the airlines concerned or the number of                  The pleas in law made against the regulation in issue are in
     participants in the group, the measure is excessive and is           two parts:
     not necessary to achieve the aim identified during the
     process leading to the adoption of Article 6(1)(b), namely
                                                                          — as to the form, the procedure which led to the adoption of
     to enable travel agents to join together in groups to
                                                                               Regulation No 378/1999 is invalidated by the fact that the
     purchase MIDT.
                                                                               applicant’s opposition to registration of the name ‘Pays
                                                                               d’Auge’ was not forwarded to the Commission;
— Second, the measure is disproportionate by reason of the
     very serious financial implications it has for CRS operators
     engaged in supplying MIDT at the date of the contested               — as to the merits, the regulation which registers the name
     decision.                                                                 ‘Pays d’Auge’ in respect of sider fails to comply with the
                                                                               conditions set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92
                                                                               in that it applies to a product which has no specific features
The applicants also submit that the obligation to state the                    as regards its recommended method of manufacture and is
reasons on which a measure is based has been infringed.                        produced in such a way as to offer no guarantee to the
                                                                               consumer.
(1) OJ L 40 of 13.2.1999, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
Action brought on 11 May 1999 by CSR Pampryl against                      Européen Promotion ‘SEP’ against Commission of the
       the Commission of the European Communities                                               European Communities
                         (Case T-114/99)                                                             (Case T-115/99)
                         (1999/C 226/62)                                                            (1999/C 226/63)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 May 1995 by CSR Pampryl, a                     European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
company whose registered office is in La Courneuve, France,               Européen Promotion ‘SEP’, whose registered office is at Saint
represented by Dominique Couturier-Heller, of the Paris Bar,              Vit (France) represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                  Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/36              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.8.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos,
                                                                        established in Vantaa, Finland, represented by Tuomas Saraste,
— annul the decision of the Commission of 8 March 1999                  lawyer, and Jouni Alanen, oikeustieteen lisensiaatti, with an
    (SG - 99 D/1697);                                                   address for service at Asianajotoimisto Asianajotalo ANPR Oy,
                                                                        Stenbäckinkatu 26, FIN-00250 Helsinki.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Annul the Commission’s decision finding that the system
                                                                             of landing charges applied by the Ilmailulaitos infringes
The applicant company contests the decision rejecting both                   Article 86 of the EC Treaty, and
the complaint lodged against Renault France, Renault Nether-
lands and Renault Autocenter concerning the barriers to                 — Order the Commission to pay the Ilmailulaitos’s costs
parallel imports by agents as well as a request for withdrawal               together with any interest for fate payment.
of the exemption by category under Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 for Renault’s distribution contracts.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions:
                                                                        The Commission in its decision infringed essential procedural
                                                                        requirements contained in Community law, in particular in
— The defendant misapplied the principle of Community
                                                                        Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February
    interest.
                                                                        1962 and Article 4 of Regulation 99/63, by basing its decision
                                                                        on an infringement which was not in the statement of
— The Commission purportedly did not examine thoroughly                 objections it made to the Ilmailulaitos in the case.
    all the matters of fact and law brought to its attention.
    More specifically, the defendant cannot rely on the mere
    fact that the practices which are claimed to he contrary to         In assessing the Commission’s error, regard must be had to the
    the Treaty ceased in order to decide not to take any further        purpose of the statement of objections of providing an
    action, in the absence of any Community interest, on a              undertaking suspected of infringing the rules on competition
    complaint denouncing such practices.                                with all the information which it needs in order to be able to
                                                                        defend itself effectively before the adoption of the Com-
— The applicant claims that in the present case there has               mission’s final decision in the matter. An effective right of
    been misuse of powers. It states in this respect that the           defence, which is a fundamental principle of Community law,
    institutions are bound to observe competition law without           also requires that the Commission formulate its statement of
    taking into account political exigencies.                           objections clearly and unambiguously.
As for delivery deadlines, which according to the Commission            The Commission also infringed essential procedural require-
are technically justified because of the popularity of the              ments by basing — with respect to airports other than
Renault Scenic, the applicant claims that 45 % of the orders it         Helsinki-Vantaa — the assessment of the trace criterion in its
handles are for models other than the Scenic. In any event, the         decision on different facts from those on which it had based
defendant failed to ascertain whether the deadlines in question         its assessment in its statement of objections. The Ilmailulaitos
are discriminatory. There is a rebuttable presumption that              thus had no adequate opportunity to defend itself in this
there is compartmentalisation of the market by the systematic           respect either.
use of deadline extensions as a deterrent against parallel
imports.
                                                                        Action brought on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti
                                                                        Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-
Action brought on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos
                                                                                                    munities
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-116/99)                                                         (Case T-118/99)
                        (1999/C 226/64)                                                         (1999/C 226/65)
                  (Language of the case: Finnish)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the