The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January
1998 in Case IV/35.814 (Alloy surcharge) in so far as
it is addressed to it,
— alternatively, reduce substantially the fine imposed on
it,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant, a Spanish public company active in the stainless
steel sector, together with other companies manufacturingthese products, had infringed Article 65(1) of the ECSC
Treaty by jointly agreeing in December 1993 to modify
and apply in concert the reference values of thecalculation formula of alloy surcharges, a practice which,
the Commission claimed, had as its object and effect, the
restriction and distortion of competition within the
common market.
The pleas in law and main arguments are, in principle, the
same as those raised in Cases T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen
Nirosta GmbH and T-47/98 Acciai Speciali Terni andT-49/98 ALZ NV, concerning the other companies
forming the alleged cartel (
1).
The applicant further claims not to have participated in
any agreement or concerted practice within the meaningof Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. If the applicant could be
regarded as having participated in such agreement or
concerted practice, quod non, the infringement can, at
most, be regarded as sporadic and ephemeral and not as
having the duration alleged by the Commission. Finally,
the fines imposed on the applicant are in any event
disproportionate and discriminatory.
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by ALZ NV against
Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-49/98)
(98/C 137/46)
(Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of FirstInstance of the European Communities on 16 March 1998
by ALZ NV, established in Genk, Belgium, represented by
B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with anaddress for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.
Loesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, 11, rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision C(1998)68 final of
21 January 1998 concerning a procedure pursuant toArticle 65 of the ECSC Treaty (alloy surcharge) in so
far as it concerns the applicant,
— in the alternative, reduce the fine,— order the defendant to pay the costs.Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
For some time a number of producers of stainless steel
have applied a common mark-up, which is known as the
alloy surcharge. That price supplement is calculated on the
basis of the price of the components of the alloy.
According to the Commission, in its decision of 21 January
1998, there is an agreement between the producers to that
effect. The cartel restricts competition to a substantial
extent, since the undertakings involved produce 90% of
all stainless steel. According to the Commission, thoseagreements constitute an infringement of Article 65 of the
ECSC Treaty.
The applicant challenges the Commission’s decision on the
grounds that:
— even without the agreements all producers would have
taken steps to adapt prices to the economic situation,
— the Commission overestimated the impact of the alloy
surcharge on prices and failed to take account of the
circumstances of each individual undertakingconcerned,
— the Commission imposed similar fines on all the
undertakings concerned, without taking account of the
considerable differences between the sizes of theundertakings,
— the Commission infringed the rights of the defence.
Action brought on 20 March 1998 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-50/98)
(98/C 137/47)
(Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of FirstInstance of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim
(Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
Luxembourg Bar, 180, route de Longwy.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
him to Grade A 4 in the 1997 promotions procedure,2.5.98 C 137/21 Official Journal of the European Communities EN