You are on page 1of 2

7.8.

1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/35

Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants in the present case challenge Article 1(7)(b), — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 378/1999 of
second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 323/1999 of 19 February 1999 in so far as the name Pays d’Auge/Pays
8th February 1999, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 d’Auge-Cambremer registers it;
on a code of conduct for computer reservations systems
(CRSs) (1). This article inserts a point (v) in Article 6(1)(b) of — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
the amended regulation, according to which group of airlines
and/or subscribers is entitled to purchase data for common
processing.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit that, on the premise that it imposes
on operators of CRSs an obligation to supply Marketing Since 1998 the applicant has manufactured and sold sider, in
Information Data transfer (MIDT) only once, to group. of particular under the names ‘La Cidraie — grand cru du Pays
airlines having a common interest in the common processing d’Auge’ and ‘Jacques Toy — grand cru cidre du Pays d’Auge’.
of those data, article 6(1)(b) infringes the principle of pro- The applicant objects to the contested regulation or the ground
portionality. That is so for two reasons: that its application would prohibit the applicant from selling
its cider under the name ‘Pays d’Auge’.
— First, if that provision is to be construed as permitting
airlines to form groups to purchase MIDT, irrespective of
the size of the airlines concerned or the number of The pleas in law made against the regulation in issue are in
participants in the group, the measure is excessive and is two parts:
not necessary to achieve the aim identified during the
process leading to the adoption of Article 6(1)(b), namely
— as to the form, the procedure which led to the adoption of
to enable travel agents to join together in groups to
Regulation No 378/1999 is invalidated by the fact that the
purchase MIDT.
applicant’s opposition to registration of the name ‘Pays
d’Auge’ was not forwarded to the Commission;
— Second, the measure is disproportionate by reason of the
very serious financial implications it has for CRS operators
engaged in supplying MIDT at the date of the contested — as to the merits, the regulation which registers the name
decision. ‘Pays d’Auge’ in respect of sider fails to comply with the
conditions set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92
in that it applies to a product which has no specific features
The applicants also submit that the obligation to state the as regards its recommended method of manufacture and is
reasons on which a measure is based has been infringed. produced in such a way as to offer no guarantee to the
consumer.

(1) OJ L 40 of 13.2.1999, p. 1.

Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Société Système


Action brought on 11 May 1999 by CSR Pampryl against Européen Promotion ‘SEP’ against Commission of the
the Commission of the European Communities European Communities

(Case T-114/99) (Case T-115/99)

(1999/C 226/62) (1999/C 226/63)

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

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 May 1995 by CSR Pampryl, a European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Société Système
company whose registered office is in La Courneuve, France, Européen Promotion ‘SEP’, whose registered office is at Saint
represented by Dominique Couturier-Heller, of the Paris Bar, Vit (France) represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim. Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
C 226/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.8.1999

The applicant claims that the Court should: European Communities on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos,
established in Vantaa, Finland, represented by Tuomas Saraste,
— annul the decision of the Commission of 8 March 1999 lawyer, and Jouni Alanen, oikeustieteen lisensiaatti, with an
(SG - 99 D/1697); address for service at Asianajotoimisto Asianajotalo ANPR Oy,
Stenbäckinkatu 26, FIN-00250 Helsinki.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments — Annul the Commission’s decision finding that the system
of landing charges applied by the Ilmailulaitos infringes
The applicant company contests the decision rejecting both Article 86 of the EC Treaty, and
the complaint lodged against Renault France, Renault Nether-
lands and Renault Autocenter concerning the barriers to — Order the Commission to pay the Ilmailulaitos’s costs
parallel imports by agents as well as a request for withdrawal together with any interest for fate payment.
of the exemption by category under Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 for Renault’s distribution contracts.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions:
The Commission in its decision infringed essential procedural
requirements contained in Community law, in particular in
— The defendant misapplied the principle of Community
Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February
interest.
1962 and Article 4 of Regulation 99/63, by basing its decision
on an infringement which was not in the statement of
— The Commission purportedly did not examine thoroughly objections it made to the Ilmailulaitos in the case.
all the matters of fact and law brought to its attention.
More specifically, the defendant cannot rely on the mere
fact that the practices which are claimed to he contrary to In assessing the Commission’s error, regard must be had to the
the Treaty ceased in order to decide not to take any further purpose of the statement of objections of providing an
action, in the absence of any Community interest, on a undertaking suspected of infringing the rules on competition
complaint denouncing such practices. with all the information which it needs in order to be able to
defend itself effectively before the adoption of the Com-
— The applicant claims that in the present case there has mission’s final decision in the matter. An effective right of
been misuse of powers. It states in this respect that the defence, which is a fundamental principle of Community law,
institutions are bound to observe competition law without also requires that the Commission formulate its statement of
taking into account political exigencies. objections clearly and unambiguously.

As for delivery deadlines, which according to the Commission The Commission also infringed essential procedural require-
are technically justified because of the popularity of the ments by basing — with respect to airports other than
Renault Scenic, the applicant claims that 45 % of the orders it Helsinki-Vantaa — the assessment of the trace criterion in its
handles are for models other than the Scenic. In any event, the decision on different facts from those on which it had based
defendant failed to ascertain whether the deadlines in question its assessment in its statement of objections. The Ilmailulaitos
are discriminatory. There is a rebuttable presumption that thus had no adequate opportunity to defend itself in this
there is compartmentalisation of the market by the systematic respect either.
use of deadline extensions as a deterrent against parallel
imports.

Action brought on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti


Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-
Action brought on 10 May 1999 by the Ilmailulaitos
munities
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-116/99) (Case T-118/99)

(1999/C 226/64) (1999/C 226/65)

(Language of the case: Finnish) (Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the