CELEX: C1998/358/35
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 9 September 1998 by Filippos Pierros against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-141/98)

C 358/18               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.11.98
distribution and sales organisations (2). According to the            refrains from taking when acting commercially as a
Commission, the measures with which it takes issue tend               producer or wholesale distributor of cigarettes.
to protect and reinforce the applicant's own position on
the market in cigarettes.
                                                                      (1) Commission Decision of 17 June 1998 concerning a procedure
                                                                          under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.010-F3 Ð
                                                                          Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato).
In support of its submissions, the applicant points in the            (2) Articles 2 and 3 of the above Decision.
first place to the absolute vagueness and inadequacy of the
factors which the Commission chose for the purpose of
distinguishing the Italian market from the remainder of
the European market. So far as concerns its dominant
position on the market for the wholesale distribution of
cigarettes, the applicant submits that, in order to
circumvent       its    alleged    hegemony,        Community
                                                                      Action brought on 9 September 1998 by Filippos Pierros
undertakings did not solely have the possibility of
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities
establishing their own distribution network, since there
are on the Italian market other undertakings operating in                                      (Case T-141/98)
the sector for the distribution of similar categories of
                                                                                                (98/C 358/35)
product. Consequently, foreign undertakings have a real
possibility of utilising the numerous commercial operators
within the sector who are authorised by the fiscal
                                                                                       (Language of the case: Greek)
authorities to trade in other products subject to excise
duty and treated for administrative and accounting
purposes in the same way as processed tobacco.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
With regard to distribution activity, the applicant submits           Instance of the European Communities on 9 September
that, following liberalisation, it operates within the                1998 by Filippos Pierros, resident in Athens, Greece,
distribution market on behalf of third parties to the extent          represented by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar,
to which it has space available in its warehouses exceeding           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
the distributon requirements for its own products, since              of Brown Holding S.A., 310 route d'Esch, L-1471
development of its present distribution network does not              Luxembourg.
form part of its interests. With more particular regard to
the distribution contract, it must be pointed out that there
is no excess in the distribution capacity of AAMS in                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
relation to the requiremens of normal provision of the
market and that the refusal to negotiate individual clauses
with one or other producer is justified by the need not to            Ð annul Commission Decision DG XXIII/MaS (98)
assume divergent and particular obligations in regard to                   1009, asking the applicant to refund the sum of ECU
one producer which the applicant would be unable to                        24 000 on the basis that it was unduly paid in
guarantee to other producers within the context of its                     connection with the grant given by the Commission to
general     distribution     organisation.    Moreover,     the            the Parliamentary Intergroup for Cooperation with the
applicant's restricted storage capacity explains both the                  Countries of Eastern Europe for the purpose of
limit of 30 % on the potential introduction of additional                  organising the European Conference on Tourism held
quantities over those determined by consumption forecasts                  in Budapest on 11, 12 and 13 April 1991, as contrary
as the limits imposed on the introduction of new cigarette                 to Community law, in particular Articles 173 and 190
brands. So far as concerns the clause relating to the                      of the Treaty, on the ground that it infringes the duty
control of cigarettes, it should be borne in mind that the                 to state reasons for administrative measures and
applicant is entitled, and has the duty, to carry out such                 general principles of Community law (namely the right
controls on the products which it markets for the purpose                  to a hearing and the principles of good administration,
of ensuring that it does not infringe the rules applicable to              of diligence and of the protection of legitimate
the sector.                                                                expectations), and on the ground of misuse of powers;
Finally, the applicant challenges the accuracy of the                 Ð annul on the same grounds every administrative,
Commission's allegations of unilateral abusive practices                   judicial or enforcement measure which is consequent
(refusal to authorise increases in monthly quantities and                  or dependent upon that decision, in particular the
measures concerning both sales outlets and retail shops).                  debit note for ECU 24 000;
With particular regard to the problems concerning retail
shops, it must be pointed out that, in so far as adopted in
the exercise of public powers, this specific conduct could            Ð declare that any claim of the Commission in this
not have been evaluated within the scope of the procedure                  matter is time-barred by virtue of Article 4 of the
established under Council Regulation (EEC) No 17/62,                       applicant's declaration of 11 January 1991;
which concerns the applicant's activities exclusively in its
capacity as an undertaking. The rules on competition are
not directly applicable to the measures which the AAMS                Ð allow the applicant the opportunity to consult the file;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/19
Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant                        Action brought on 21 September 1998 by J. G. Evans
     compensation for non-material harm in the sum of              and Others against the Commission of the European
     ECU 5 000 000;                                                                         Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-148/98)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 358/36)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant was a Member of the European Parliament              An action against the Commission of the European
between 1989 and 1994. While serving as an M.E.P. he               Communities was brought before the Court of First
was Vice-President of the Parliamentary Intergroup for             Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
Cooperation between the Community and the countries of             1998 by J. G. Evans and Others, represented by Thomas
Eastern Europe. In 1990 that intergroup decided, in                Graham and Barbara Hewson, with an address for service
conjunction with the intergroup for tourism, to organise a         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11,
conference on tourism between the European Union and               rue Goethe.
the States of central and Eastern Europe.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
Its organisation was funded, inter alia, by a grant given by
the European Commission within the framework of the
European Year of Tourism amounting to ECU 30 000,                  Ð annul the Decision of the Commission in Case IV/E-3/
which represented 20 % of the estimated cost of the event.             SWSMA of 30 July 1998 declaring that the
By the contested decision the applicant is now asked to                Commission had no power to act under Article 63(1)
refund ECU 24 000 to the Commission on the ground that                 of the ECSC Treaty in respect of past price
it was wrongly paid. The applicant maintains that the                  discrimination by purchasers against coal-producers
sums in question were handled absolutely lawfully and                  during the period 1984 to 1 April 1990; and
properly and puts forward the following grounds for
annulment:
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
1. Total failure to state the grounds for the contested
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     decision;
                                                                   In 1990, 93 coal producers (among them the applicants)
2. Infringement of general principles of Community law,
                                                                   complained in the name of the South Wales Small Mines
     in particular:
                                                                   Association (SWSMA) to the Commission of price
                                                                   discrimination by the Central Electricity Generating Board
     2.1. failure to grant a hearing;                              (CEGB) and its successors, National Power and Power
                                                                   Gen. The complaint concerned the operation of a Joint
                                                                   Understanding between British Coal and the CEGB,
     2.2. misuse of powers;                                        whereby the CEGB bought the bulk of the coal required
                                                                   for electricity generation from british Coal at prices which
     2.3. infringement of       the   principle   of    good       were considerably higher than those offered to the small
           administration;                                         coal producers like the applicants, who were British Coal's
                                                                   competitors.
     2.4. infringement of the principle of the protection of
           legitimate expectations.                                By the contested decision the SWSMA was informed that
                                                                   the Commission had decided not to act on that complaint.
The applicant submits in the alternative that the
Commission's claims relating to the grant in question are          The applicants submit that the Commission erred in law
time-barred.                                                       in concluding that it had no power to make a
                                                                   recommendation under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty
                                                                   in respect of price discrimination during the period 1984
Finally the applicant, relying upon the second paragraph           to 1 April 1990. They submit that the Commission is so
of Article 215(2) of the EC Treaty, claims compensation            empowered. Alternatively, the Commission unlawfully
for the non-material harm which he has suffered by reason          refused to act under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
of contested Decision.
                                                                   Furthermore the applicants submit that the Commission's
                                                                   finding that no ground existed for issuing a