You are on page 1of 1


98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 312/17

Action brought on 30 July 1998 by Andre Hecq against Action brought on 31 July 1998 by Taurus Beteiligungs-
the Commission of the European Communities GmbH against the Commission of the European
(Case T-119/98)
(Case T-121/98)
(98/C 312/42)
(98/C 312/43)

(Language of the case: French) (Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European

An action against the Commission of European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 31 July 1998
Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 1998
by Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG, whose
by Andre Hecq, residing at Bonlez (Belgium), represented
registered office is in Ismaning (Germany), represented by
by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Hermanns and Ritvay, Rechtsanwälte, Berlin, with an
service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Heinrich Heine.
Loesch and Wolters, 11 Rue Goethe.

The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

Ð annul Commission Decision C(1998) 1439 final of

Ð annul the implicit decision, deemed to have been made 27 May 1998, as amended by Commission Decision
on 6 May 1998, rejecting the complaint submitted by C(1998) 1518 final of 2 June 1998, concerning a
the applicant on 5 January 1998 by which he procedure applying Council Regulation (EEC)
contested the decision of 17 October 1997 calculating No 4064/89 (the Merger Control Regulation') in Case
the expenses granted to him in respect of the mission IV/M.993 Bertelsmann/Kirch/Premiere,
to Ispra undertaken by him between 16 September and
20 September 1997,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.

Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with
the expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of By the contested decision of 27 May 1998 (in the version
the proceedings, including, in particular, the cost of notified on 2 June 1998) the notified concentration
having an address for service, travel and subsistence through the acquisition by CLT-UFA SA and Taurus Betei-
expenses and lawyers' fees, in accordance with ligungs-GmbH & Co. KG of joint control over the
Article 73(b) of those Rules. undertakings of Premiere Medien GmbH & Co. KG, Beta-
Digital Gesellschaft für digitale Fernsehdienste mbH and
BetaResearch Gesellschaft für Entwicklung und Vermark-
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: tung digitaler Infrastrukturen mbH was declared
incompatible with the common market and the
functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3)
The applicant, a grade B 1 official, is currently on of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
secondment in his capacity as the political secretary of a 1989 (as amended). In the Commission's view, that
trade-union/staff association. Upon the occasion of a concentration would lead to the creation or strengthening
plenary meeting in Ispra of the Central Staff Committee, of dominant market positions, whereby effective
he received a travel order covering a period of five days. competition in a substantial part of the Community would
Having completed that mission, the applicant submitted a be significantly impaired.
request for reimbursement of the mission expenses.
However, the department dealing with missions within
DG IX of the Commission drew up a calculation of In its action, the applicant first complains of the
mission expenses which granted the applicant a daily infringement of essential procedural requirements. It
subsistence allowance in respect of only four and a half maintains that the Commission infringed the principle of
days. objective investigation in that it had already determined
upon a negative decision before the actual proceeding
began, without obtaining adequate knowledge of the
The sole plea advanced in the present action alleges subject matter. The applicant's right of access to the files
infringement of the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of was also infringed, as only partial access was granted and
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in that the the time allowed was too short. In many respects,
administration granted to the applicant, in respect of the moreover, the subject matter was insufficiently explained.
mission undertaken by him, a daily subsistence allowance With its demand for a particular technical solution in the
for only four and a half days instead of five days. area of digital television, the Commission had exceeded its
powers and attempted to impose changes in market
structure that went far beyond the subject matter of the
concentration proceeding.