You are on page 1of 1

C 312/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.10.

98

Action brought on 7 August 1998 by AeÂroports de Paris as the present case manifestly concerns the air transport
against Commission of the European Communities sector and the transport sector as a whole has been
(Case T-128/98) removed from the scope of Regulation No 17. According
to ADP, the misapplication of that Regulation constitutes
(98/C 312/47) a serious procedural defect vitiating the decision.

(Language of the case: French) Secondly, ADP alleges infringement of the rights of the
defence, since the contested decision is wholly at variance
with the position expressly stated by the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European throughout the administrative procedure.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 August 1998
by AeÂroports de Paris (ADP), a public corporation whose Thirdly, ADP submits that the contested decision falls
registered office is in Paris, represented by Hugues Calvet, seriously short of fulfilling the obligation to state reasons.
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Fourthly, ADP maintains that the Commission misapplied
Rue.
the provisions of Article 86 of the EC Treaty: ADP is not
an undertaking within the meaning of Article 86; the
The applicant claims that the Court should: Commission's definition of the market is seriously
inaccurate; ADP does not enjoy a dominant position; its
conduct does not meet the conditions laid down in
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 11 June 1998 Article 86 and no discrimination may properly be
which states that ADP has infringed Article 86 of the attributed to it.
EC Treaty and must put an end to the infringement
within two months of the date of notification of the
decision, Fifthly, ADP argues that the competition rules cannot be
applied to it in the present case pursuant to Article 90(2)
of the EC Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs
incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.
Lastly, ADP claims that the Commission has infringed
Article 222 of the EC Treaty and, by misapplying
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Article 86 of the EC Treaty, has misused its powers.

The applicant is a public corporation with responsibility


for the planning, administration and development of all
the civil air transport installations which are centred in the
Paris region and which seek to facilitate the arrival and
departure of aircraft, to control traffic and to load, unload Action brought on 12 August 1998 by Groupe Perry SA
and groundhandle passengers, goods and mail carried by and Isibiris against Commission of the European
air. In 1995 Alpha Flight Services, a company which Communities
supplies airport catering services at Paris-Orly Airport, (Case T-132/98)
lodged a formal complaint against ADP alleging that the
latter was imposing discriminatory fees on the suppliers of (98/C 312/48)
catering services in breach of Article 86 of the EC Treaty.
(Language of the case: French)
By the contested decision, the Commission found that
ADP had infringed the provisions of Article 86 of the EC An action against the Commission of the European
Treaty by using its dominant position as manager of the Communities was brought before the Court of First
Paris airports to impose discriminatory commercial fees in Instance of the European Communities on 12 August
the Paris airports of Orly and Roissy-Charles de Gaulle on 1998 by Groupe Perry SA and Isibiris, whose registered
suppliers or users engaged in groundhandling or self- offices are in Luxembourg, represented by Fernand
handling activities relating to catering (including the Entringer, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
loading and unloading of food and beverages on aircraft), service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 34a Rue Philippe
to the cleaning of aircraft and to the handling of cargo. II.
Under Article 2 of the decision, ADP is required to put an
end to the infringement by applying to the suppliers of
groundhandling services concerned a non-discriminatory The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
scheme of commercial fees within two months of the date should:
of notification of the contested decision.
Ð declare that the Commission acted improperly,
ADP maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by a
procedural defect, on which ground it must be annulled. Ð declare that that improper conduct gives rise to non-
The application of Regulation No 17 is unlawful in so far contractual liability on the part of the Union,