You are on page 1of 1

C 136/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15.5.

1999

— In the alternative, the Commission calculated arbitrarily Grounds for annulment and main arguments
the period during which the applicant is alleged to have
been party to an agreement or agreements for the joint
setting of the carriage charges. — Manifest errors by the Commission in its assessment of the
facts and with regard to the applications of Article 85 (1)
of the Treaty and of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86.
— Assuming that the applicant was party to such an agree-
ment, that agreement is not covered by the prohibition in Insufficient reasoning in relation to the Commission’s view
Article 85 (1) of the Treaty, being an agreement of minor that the applicant had not lost its independence so far as
significance, because as the Commission acknowledged, concerns the setting of carriage charges in the international
the applicant is a small or medium-sized enterprise. section of the timetable.
Furthermore, the Commission contradicted itself because,
while it accepted that the infringement had limited impact, The above defects in the contested decision lead to the
it stated that the agreement significantly impeded compe- conclusion that the Commission misused its power to
tition in a substantial part of the relevant market. impose fines.

— In the further alternative, the amount of the fine imposed — Manifest error by the Commission in its assessment of
on the applicant offends against the principle of pro- the content of the letters from the Greek Permanent
portionality. Representative’s Office and the Greek Ministry for
Merchant Shipping and failure to set out the reasons why
it ignored the applicant’s analysis of those letters.

— Manifest error by the Commission relating to the appli-


cation of Community law and insufficient reasoning: the
consultation between the companies involved does not fall
within the scope of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty.

— The fine which the Commission imposed on the applicant


Action brought on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi amounts to a misuse of powers.
Naftiliaki AE against the Commission of the European
Communities
— In the alternative, that fine is disproportionately high.

(Case T-65/99)
— Finally, it is alleged that the illegality of the inspection
carried out by the Commission at the offices of the
(1999/C 136/39) company ETA constitutes a substantive infringement.

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi
Naftiliaki AE, whose registered office is in Piraeus, Greece, Action brought on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes Grammes
represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Basilios ANE against the Commission of the European Communi-
Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in ties
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 rue
Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.
(Case T-66/99)

The applicant claims that the Court should: (1999/C 136/40)

— annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 9


December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 (Language of the case: Greek)
of the Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


— in the alternative, annul Article 1 of that decision with
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
regard to the duration of the infringement of Article 85 (1)
European Communities on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes
of the Treaty so far as concerns the applicant, or in any
Grammes ANE whose registered office is in Heraklion, Crete
event reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
(Greece), represented by Ilias Soufleros, of the Athens Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
— order the Commission to pay the costs. Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, L-1661 Luxembourg.