# C_2004284EN.01000902.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/9

---

Appeal brought on 22 September 2004 by Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-403/04 P)

(2004/C 284/19)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd, established in Osaka, Japan, represented by C. Vajda QC and G. Sproul, Solicitor.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| (i) | allow the Appeal, in whole or in part, against the judgment in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 and set aside, in whole or in part, the said judgment; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

allow the Appeal, in whole or in part, against the judgment in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 and set aside, in whole or in part, the said judgment;

| (ii) | annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1 and 3 to 6 of the Decision in so far as they are addressed to SMI; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1 and 3 to 6 of the Decision in so far as they are addressed to SMI;

| (iii) | order, if appropriate, the Commission to pay compensation to SMI for the breach of Article 6(1) of the ECHR a sum of not less than EUR 1,012,332, being the aggregate of EUR 217,183 (the extra cost of the bank guarante), EUR 620,249 (the extra cost of the default interest), and EUR 175,000; and |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

order, if appropriate, the Commission to pay compensation to SMI for the breach of Article 6(1) of the ECHR a sum of not less than EUR 1,012,332, being the aggregate of EUR 217,183 (the extra cost of the bank guarante), EUR 620,249 (the extra cost of the default interest), and EUR 175,000; and

| (iv) | order the Commission to pay SMI's costs, both before the Court and the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

order the Commission to pay SMI's costs, both before the Court and the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

| (a) | the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong standard of proof in a case where the Appellant has demonstrated that the Commission's allegation is incompatible with the Appellant's commercial interest and therefore irrational; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong standard of proof in a case where the Appellant has demonstrated that the Commission's allegation is incompatible with the Appellant's commercial interest and therefore irrational;

| (b) | the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong standard of proof in a case where the documentary evidence is ambiguous and the Appellant has offered a plausible alternative explanation of the conduct at issue; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong standard of proof in a case where the documentary evidence is ambiguous and the Appellant has offered a plausible alternative explanation of the conduct at issue;

| (c) | the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong legal standard of proof as to the level of corroboration required in support of contested statements which the Commission uses as principal evidence but which are implausible, highly ambiguous and contradicted by other evidence; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong legal standard of proof as to the level of corroboration required in support of contested statements which the Commission uses as principal evidence but which are implausible, highly ambiguous and contradicted by other evidence;

| (d) | the Court of First Instance erred in law by giving contradictory and inadequate reasons in concluding that the statement of Mr Becher (an employee of Mannesmann) of 21 April 1997 could corroborate the statements of Mr Verluca, Head of Vallourec Oil & Gas, regarding the alleged infringement in respect of project line pipe. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the Court of First Instance erred in law by giving contradictory and inadequate reasons in concluding that the statement of Mr Becher (an employee of Mannesmann) of 21 April 1997 could corroborate the statements of Mr Verluca, Head of Vallourec Oil & Gas, regarding the alleged infringement in respect of project line pipe.

---