Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Schneider Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-351/03)

    Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 October 2003 by Schneider Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), represented by M. Pittie and A. Winckler, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(order the Community to pay it the sum of EUR 1 663 734 716.76;

(such sum to be reduced, if appropriate, by an amount not exceeding EUR 1 663 595.74, depending on the outcome of the applications for taxation of the costs in Cases T-310/01, T-77/02 and T-77/02 R;

(such sum to be increased by interest accrued since 4 December 2002 until full payment thereof, at the rate of 4% per year;

(such sum to be increased by the amount of tax for which Schneider will be liable on its receipt;

(order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company in this case seeks to obtain compensation for the loss which it suffered as a result of the Commission's conduct in dealing with Case COMP/M.2283 ( Schneider Electric/Legrand, which gave rise to the judgments in Case T-310/01 ¹ and Case T-77/02 ².

It claims in that regard that the Commission, in the course of the proceeding which led to the prohibition decision of 10 October 2001, made numerous errors most of which were found established by the Court of First Instance. It also claims that, during the proceeding after that prohibition decision, the Commission made errors, not yet established by the Court, which have increased the damage suffered. In its view, such conduct by the Commission should be regarded as manifestly and seriously exceeding the limits of its discretion to assess the compatibility of a concentration (with the common market).

It is a question, in particular, of a lack of fairness by the Commission in the proceeding which led to the decision of 10 October 2001, of infringement of the applicant's defence rights, of orchestration of the relations between the parties to the concentration, of infringement of the right to be heard by an impartial authority, of its intransigence concerning the detailed rules of the separation imposed on 30 January 2002, of serious and manifest failure to take into account its exclusive jurisdiction and of the erroneous analysis of the corrective measures proposed in November 2002.

____________

¹ - (Schneider v Commission [2002] ECR II-4071.

² - (Schneider v Commission [2002] ECR II-4201.