You are on page 1of 2

25.7.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 234/29

Ð in the alternative, annul those parts of the decision Ð Errors of law in the application of Article 86,
that the Court finds erroneous or unsafe; and inasmuch as cabinet provisions on a free-on-loan basis
do, in the circumstances of this industry, represent the
normal means by which suppliers of impulse ice cream
Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs. compete and should be objectively justified.

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Ð Errors of law in the failure to respect property rights
as required by general principles of law and under
The application concerns the prohibition of the practice of Article 222 of the EC Treaty. HB submits in this
freezer cabinet exclusivity as adopted by the applicant Van regard that the contested decision seeks to deprive it in
Den Bergh Foods Ltd (formerly HB and here referred to as whole or substantial part of the value and enjoyment
such), a subsidiary of the Unilever N.V./PLC group, in the of its investments in cabinets, which have no purpose
market for wrapped single-portion ice cream intended for other than to support the storage and sale of the HB's
immediate consumption (impulse ice cream') in the ice creams at point of sale, so that to prohibit the
Republic of Ireland. Freezer-cabinet exclusivity involves exclusivity clause is to deprive the applicant of rights
the provision by an ice-cream supplier of freezer cabinets, representing the normal incidents of its cabinet
which are paid for and maintained by the supplier, to ownership.
retailers to be used exclusively for the sale of the impulse
ice-cream products of that supplier. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision
has been taken in breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
and of a number of fundamental principles of Community
The decision that whenever the applicant supplies to a
law, such as protection of legitimate expectations,
retailer one or more HB owned and maintained cabinets
subsidiarity, legal certainty, proportionality and equal
for the stocking of impulse ice cream and that retailer
treatment.
does not also have his own cabinet or one supplied by a
third-party ice-cream manufacturer, the exclusivity term of
the agreement under which the cabinet is supplied
infringes Article 85(1), and the inducement to the retailer
to accept the supply by HB of a cabinet (subject to a
condition of exclusivity) and its maintenance without
direct charges infringes Article 86. Moreover, the request Action brought on 29 April 1998 by Luc Verheyden
for an exemption of the exclusivity term under against the Commission of the European Communities
Article 85(3) is rejected. (Case T-71/98)
(98/C 234/58)
The applicant's pleas in law and main arguments can be
summarized as follows:
(Language of the case: French)

Ð Manifest errors of assessment of facts, leading to
An action against the Commission of the European
errors of law. It is submitted on this point that the
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Commission is wrong to attribute a foreclosing effect
Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 1998
to agreements terminable at will by deeming them to
by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera (Italy), represented
give rise to a so-called de facto tie', and by
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
concluding on the basis of HB's popularity as a
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
supplier of impulse ice cream that retail outlets are in
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
consequence deprived of the opportunity to replace
freezer cabinets supplied by HB or to install further
cabinets alongside the HB cabinet. On the contrary, The applicant claims that the Court should:
the number of retail outlets (even in the smallest size
category) with two or more cabinets is substantial and Ð annul the decision of 10 July 1997, signed by Mr
has been increasing over time. Holtbecker, refusing the applicant any compensation
for the use of his personal vehicle in the performance
Ð Errors of law in the application of Article 85(1). of his duties or on the occasion thereof;
According to the applicant, the basic form of cabinet
agreement does not involve a restriction of Ð annul the decision implicitly rejecting the complaint
competition and the exclusivity' provision similarly submitted by the applicant against that refusal on
falls outside that provision. Secondly, Article 85(1) 29 September 1997, which was registered as having
will only apply to the HB cabinet agreements if they been received on that date;
foreclose the market to new entrants or to those
seeking to build market share to a degree and extent
inconsistent with non-applicability of the prohibition Ð order the defendant to pay compensation amounting
under Article 85(1), which should not be the case. to LIT 74 254 000 together with compensatory
interest at the annual rate of 8 %, to be calculated in
respect of the period from 24 March until the date of
Ð Errors of law in the assessment under Article 85(3). payment in full;
C 234/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.7.98

Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs. with Italian legislation, and were approved by it on 7 July
1994. In the meantime, the abovementioned doctor
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: brought an action before the courts in Italy against the
applicant seeking an order enjoining him to pay said fees
and expenses.
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and 71 of
the Staff Regulations and of Annex VII thereof, in
particular Articles 14b and 15, and breach of the principle In support of his application the applicant claims that the
of equality and of the principle that all administrative following have been breached:
decisions must be based on a lawful and relevant
statement of reasons; he maintains that no valid statement Ð the first paragraph of Article 8 of Annex II to the Staff
of reasons was given for the contested decision. Regulations;

Ð the first paragraph of Article 23(2) of the Rules on the
Insurance of Officials of the European Communities
against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
Disease;
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
against the Commission of the European Communities Ð the duty of care incumbent on the Commission;
(Case T-75/98)
(98/C 234/59) Ð the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
to observe reasonable periods' under the Declaration
of Human Rights, in view of the fact that the two
(Language of the case: Italian) Committees took years to complete reach their
findings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by
Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Mauro Cimino, of the
Fermo Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-
Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux
Alzette.
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-76/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(98/C 234/60)
1. order the defendant to pay the costs of the
proceedings, that is LIT 35 950 million, together with (Language of the case: French)
the interest and legal costs accrued, as well as to
refund the costs incurred by Dr Cognigni as a result of An action against the Commission of the European
participating in the Medical Committee; Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1998
2. order the defendant to make good non-material by Claudine Hamptaux, residing at WoluweÂ-St-Lambert
damage caused in the amount of six times the amount (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
mentioned in paragraph 1 above, including interest with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
and other costs; Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.

3. order the defendant to pay the costs. The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Ð annul the decision, adopted on 30 January 1998 (and
notified on 11 February 1998), expressly rejecting the
complaint made by the applicant to the appointing
The present action seeks to obtain payment of a principal authority on 9 October 1997 by which she contested
sum and interest thereon by way of fees and related the following two decisions:
expenses for the doctor appointed by the applicant to the
Invalidity Committee and to the Medical Committee in Ð the decision (notified to the applicant on 9 July
the procedures for assessing invalidity and recognizing 1997 and published in Administrative Notices
occupational diseases respectively. No 998 of 8 August 1997) not to include the
applicant in the list of officials most deserving of
The applicant states in this regard that upon the promotion to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
conclusion of the Invalidity Committee and the Medical procedure;
Committee, the doctor appointed by him applied in vain
to the administration for the fees for his services. The fees Ð the decision (published in Administrative Notices
and expenses in question were submitted to the Consiglio No 999 of 12 August 1997) listing the officials
dell'Ordine dei Medici (Medical Council) in accordance promoted to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions