T-369/00

C 61/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 24.2.2001

The applicants oppose the unduly broad scope of the Com- Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Département mission’s findings and the excessive level of the fine and put du Loiret against the Commission of the European Com- forward, in particular, the following arguments: munities

(Case T-369/00)

— Contrary to the Commission’s findings Opel Nederland (2001/C 61/35) did not apply a general strategy vis-à-vis its dealers to hinder or restrict all exports of new cars but conducted a lawful policy to dissuade irregular sales to unauthorized (Language of the case: French) resellers in order to protect the integrity of its selective distribution system. An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 December 2000 by the Départe- ment du Loiret, of Orléans (France), represented by Alexandre — The applicants do not contest that Opel Nederland took Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar. a decision to limit product allocation based on certain sales targets. However, this unilateral decision cannot be characterised as an agreement with its dealers to restrict The applicant claims that the Court should: exports in violation of Article 81 EC. This decision was never implemented nor was it ever communicated to the — annul the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 in dealers. In any event, it left dealers free to engage in so far as it declares illegal, and orders the repayment of, lawful export sales of their allegedly allocated volumes. State aid amounting to FRF 48.7 million (100 million in terms of its current value) granted in the form of a preferential price for the purchase of land;

In support of its claims, the above-mentioned Département — There was no agreement to discontinue exports with all asserts, first of all, that the Commission has applied an the dealers of the Opel distribution network in the excessively narrow construction to the notion of a private Netherlands. The alleged commitments to restrict exports investor, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the nature of concern a very small number of dealers and a short the local authority, of its investment parameters and of the period of time and did not appreciably restrict inter- or economic considerations underlying its decision to sell a parcel intra-brand competition. of developed industrial land. It states in that regard that, in seeking a suitable candidate to set up a business on its territory, a local authority necessarily includes, amongst the economic criteria on which its analysis is based, the specific fiscal revenue which it will receive, such as that arising from the business As to the level of the fine, the applicants consider that it is taxes and property taxes resulting from the business set up. disproportionate and fails to reflect the short duration of the alleged infringement and the limited number of dealers The applicant also complains that the Commission has involved, the lack of intent of Opel Nederland, the clear included in the total costs expenditure which has manifestly evidence of large-scale violations of the Opel selective distri- not been incurred in the interests of Scott Paper S.A. The bution system by some dealers, the limited impact on intra- specific sum in question amounts to FRF 2 372 000, relating Community trade and, finally, the immediate and effective to preliminary studies. corrective action taken by Opel Nederland at its own initiative. Lastly, it maintains that the calculation method used by the Commission is wrong.