You are on page 1of 2

7.3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72/27

Ð declare that the European Economic Community is Chambers of Me Marc Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe,
liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered Luxembourg.
by him as a result of the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 Mach 1984 and of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March The applicant claims that the Court should:
1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84,
inasmuch as those regulations contain(ed) no provision
enabling a representative reference quantity to be Ð annul the decision of 4 November 1997, whereby the
granted to SLOM transferees who, pursuant to an Council refused to grant access to the document
undertaking given in accordance with Council requested by the applicant,
Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977, did
not supply any milk during the reference year selected
by the Member State concerned, Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant
to the Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance, including the costs of any
Ð declare that the applicant has suffered a loss of income interveners.
amounting to the difference between, on the one hand,
the revenue Ð including inter alia income from sales
and additions to his herd Ð which he would in the Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
ordinary course of events have received from the
quantities of milk that he would have delivered if,
during the period from 1 April 1984 (the date on The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament,
which Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 entered into force) seeks the annulment of a refusal by the defendant to grant
to 31 March 1994 (the date of expiry of the 1993/ access to a certain document which was requested
1994 levy period), had he been in possession of the pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
milk reference quantity to which he was entitled, and, 1993 on public access to Council documents. The
on the other hand, the income which he actually document in question is the Report from the Common
received during that period; Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Working Group on
Conventional Arms Exports, approved on 14Ð15
November 1996, on the implementation of the common
Ð declare that interest at the rate of 8 % per annum, or criteria on arms exports agreed by the European Council
such other rate as the Court shall in its discretion in 1991 and 1992.
think fit, is payable to the applicant on the
compensation due to him, covering the period from
the date of delivery of the Court's judgment to the In support of the form of order which it seeks the
date of payment in full, applicant submits that the contested refusal constitutes:

Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.


Ð a misapplication of the exceptions laid down in
Article 4(1) of the above mentioned Council Decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: First, the Council has refused access to the Report in
its entirety, without any explanation why its disclosure
could be harmful for the EU's relations with third
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in countries'. The mandatory and absolute terms in
Case T-146/97. which the Article 4(1) is drafted does not permit such
an approach. Second, even should it appear that the
disclosure of certain aspects of the Report might
undermine the protection of the public interest, the
applicant still submits that the Council has acted in
breach of its duty to provide access to those parts of
the document not covered by the exception. The
Action brought on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala, failure on the part of the defendant to examine in the
Member of the European Parliament against the Council present case the question whether the document
of the European Union should be released if certain parts were blanked out
(Case T-14/98) constitutes further evidence of the Council's failure to
give the applicant's request any careful consideration
(98/C 72/58) and should in itself be regarded as constituting an
infringement of Article 4(1),
(Language of the case: English)

Ð a breach of the fundamental principle of the


An action against the Council of the European Union was Community law that citizens of the European Union
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European should be granted the widest and fullest possible
Communities on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala, MEP, access to documents of the institutions of the Union,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and Thomas Janssens, and of the principle of the protection of legitimate
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the expectations,
C 72/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.3.98

Ð a breach of the obligation to state reasons, inasmuch The complaint alleged conduct which amounted to serious
as in the contested refusal the Council merely infringements of the rules on competition of the EC Treaty
reproduced the text of Council Decision 97/731/EC, committed during the construction of the building for the
without relating it to a specific factual premise. Council of the European Union in Brussels. The nature
and effect of those infringements was to distort
competition to the detriment of undertakings from other
Member States and to dissuade in the long term non-
Belgian undertakings from taking part in Belgian public
procurement contracts. Essentially, that complaint was
Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Impregilo SpA and directed against an agreement, arrangement or concerted
Others against the Commission of the European practice between a large number of the major Belgian
Communities construction and public works undertakings which
(Case T-19/98) enabled them to penalise' the members of CDK, one of
(98/C 72/59) which is an Italian undertaking and another German,
which dared' to attempt to penetrate the Belgian
(Language of the case: French) construction and public works market by submitting
tenders for the construction of the Council's new
An action against the Commission of the European buildings.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January
1998 by Impregilo SpA, established in Milan (Italy), Such conduct was made possible largely by the action of
Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG (Dywidad), established in the Belgian State itself. By conferring on the EGC
Ascheim (Federal Republic of Germany) and Entreprises consortium an economically and legally dominant position
Koeckelberg SA, established in Charleroi (Belgium), with respect to its competitor CDK, in particular by
represented by Chantal Bonnard, of the Paris Bar, with an granting it excessive powers and an unprecedented
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of plurality of roles, the Belgian State infringed the
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'rue. Community competition rules and created a situation
which inevitably led to manifest, serious and repeated
The applicants claim that the Court should: abuses.
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 13 November
1997 whereby the latter rejected the applicants' The Commission rejected that complaint by way of the
requests that the infringements of Articles 5, 85, 86 contested decision.
and 90 of the EC Treaty committed by Belgian
construction undertakings and the Belgian State during The applicants plead infringement of Articles 5, 85, 86
the construction of the new Council of Ministers and 90 of the EC Treaty.
building be penalised,

Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs incurred By failing to carry out an investigation, despite all the
by the applicants in the present action for annulment. circumstantial and factual evidence in its possession
pointing to the existence of a collective dominant position,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Commission has infringed Article 86 and failed to
The applicants, three construction undertakings, are fulfil its obligations with regard to the application of the
members of CDK', a consortium governed by Belgian competition rules.
law, set up in order to participate in the construction of
the new building complex intended to accommodate the The granting of exclusive and special powers to EGC by
Council's staff. EGC' is a consortium governed by Belgian the Belgian State is a breach of the Belgian State's
law, under which are grouped the members of four obligations flowing from 90 of the EC Treaty.
consortia consisting mainly of Belgian contractors, formed
for the purpose of constructing the Council's buildings.
The members of the EGC are among the major Moreover, the contested decision is contrary to Article 85
construction companies in Belgium. of the EC Treaty inasmuch as it considers that the setting
up of EGC is not incompatible with that provision. The
On 28 February 1996 the members of CDK lodged a rejection of the complaint on the ground that the
complaint with the defendant against 16 Belgian applicants have not suffered any damage as a result of the
undertakings in the construction industry which form part consortium with regard to some lots is likewise contrary
of the EGC consortium and against the Belgian State. to Article 85.