The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 of
12 December 1997 on the issuing of import licences
for rice falling within CN code 1006 and originating
in the overseas countries and territories under the
specific measures introduced by Regulation (EC)
No 2352/97 (1),
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
those in Case T-32/98 (2).
(1) OJ L 343, 13.12.1997, p. 17.
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
Action brought on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola
Sabbatucci against the European Parliament
(Case T-42/98)
(98/C 137/44)
(Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola
Sabbatucci, represented by Alberto Dal Ferro and AndreaCevese, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service at
the Chambers of Morresi Law Office, 67, avenue des
Nerviens, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the notice of 27 January 1998 of the Committee
of Tellers and their reply of 17 February 1998
inasmuch as they exclude the applicant from the
candidates elected to the Staff Committee,
— order the defendant to pay the costs of these
proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official in Category B at the European
Parliament, challenges her exclusion from the Staff
Committee of the European Parliament. The applicant
observes that she submitted her candidature in List No 5for the to the second-round elections held in January 1998
and obtained the greatest number of votes of those on the
list. According to the information provided by the
Committee of Tellers following the allocation of seats on
the basis of the number of individual votes, one of theconditions with regard to the composition of the
committee laid down in Article 17(5)(b) of the
Parliament’s electoral rules requiring the presence of a
certain number of members assigned to Brussels had not
been met. Thus the applicant was replaced by the Brusselsrepresentative, who had not been elected, who had the
greatest number of votes in List No 5.The applicant points out that, as a result of interpreting in
this way Article 17 of the electoral rules, List No 5 hascome to have only Brussels-based representatives among
those elected from it, while the candidate who had
received the greatest number of individual votes was
excluded from those elected. The applicant claims that
such a final result is paradoxical and legally aberrant.Such a result conflicts directly with the basic rule which
governs any kind of democratic ballot, namely that those
candidates who obtain the greatest number of votes winand are appointed according to the number of votes
obtained.
In support of her application the applicant claims that the
contested decisions should be annulled:
— inasmuch as they infringe Articles 6, 17 and 18 of the
electoral rules,
— in the alternative, inasmuch as those rules are in
breach of the provisions of Annex II to the Staff
Regulations,
— inasmuch as they are contrary to the principles
common to all the Member States in matters of
electoral law, according to which the first successful
candidate from the list which has obtained the greatest
number of votes must be elected.
The applicant states in particular that to read
Article 17(5)(b) in the way that the Committee of Tellers
has done runs counter to the system of proportional
distribution of seats laid down in Article 17(1) and (2)thereof. However, should the Court consider that the only
possible interpretation of Article 17 of the electoral rules
is that adopted in the contested decisions, the applicant
also claims that that provision and Article 6(4) are
contrary to Annex II to the Staff Regulations. The absencein that Annex of any mention of the obligation to ensure
that the staff of a particular seat are represented where
there is only a single committee means, in the view of the
applicant, that where such representation is guaranteed by
the electoral rules, it should be established by way ofcriteria such as not to upset the choice expressed by the
electorate with its vote.
Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acerinox SA
against Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-48/98)
(98/C 137/45)
(Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1998by Acerinox SA, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele
and Denis Waelbroeck with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Offices of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
Matrhias Hardt.C 137/20 2.5.98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN
Theapplicant claims thattheCourt should:
—annul thedecision oftheCommission of21January
1998 inCase IV/35.814 (Alloy surcharge) insofaras
itisaddressed toit,
—alternatively ,reduce substantially thefineimposed on
it,
—order theCommission topaythecosts.
Pleas inlawandmain arguments adduced insupport:
Bythecontested decision theCommission found that the
applicant, aSpanish public company active inthestainless
steel sector ,together with other companies manufacturing
these products, hadinfringed Article 65(1) oftheECSC
Treaty byjointly agreeing inDecember 1993 tomodify
and apply inconcert the reference values ofthe
calculation formula ofalloy surcharges, apractice which,
theCommission claimed, hadasitsobject andeffect, the
restriction and distortion ofcompetition within the
common market.
Thepleas inlawandmain arguments are,inprinciple, the
same asthose raised inCases T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen
Nirosta GmbH and T-47/98 Acciai Speciali Terni and
T-49/98 ALZ NV,concerning the other companies
forming thealleged cartel (1).
The applicant further claims nottohave participated in
anyagreement orconcerted practice within themeaning
ofArticle 65oftheECSC Treaty.Iftheapplicant could be
regarded ashaving participated insuch agreement or
concerted practice, quod non, theinfringement can, at
most, beregarded assporadic andephemeral andnotas
having theduration alleged bytheCommission. Finally ,
thefines imposed ontheapplicant areinany event
disproportionate anddiscriminatory .
(1)Notyetpublished intheOfficial Journal .
Action brought on16March 1998 byALZ NVagainst
Commission oftheEuropean Communities
(Case T-49/98)
(98/C 137/46)
(Language ofthecase: Dutch)
Anaction against the Commission ofthe European
Communities was brought before theCourt ofFirst
Instance oftheEuropean Communities on16March 1998
byALZ NV,established inGenk, Belgium, represented by
B.vandeWalledeGhelcke, oftheBrussels Bar,with an
address forservice inLuxembourg attheChambers ofM.
Loesch, oftheLuxembourg Bar,11,rueGoethe.
Theapplicant claims thattheCourt should:
—annul theCommission’s decision C(1998)68 final of
21January 1998 concerning aprocedure pursuant toArticle 65oftheECSC Treaty (alloy surcharge) inso
farasitconcerns theapplicant,
—inthealternative, reduce thefine,
—order thedefendant topaythecosts.
Pleas inlawandmain arguments adduced insupport:
Forsome time anumber ofproducers ofstainless steel
have applied acommon mark-up, which isknown asthe
alloy surcharge. That price supplement iscalculated onthe
basis oftheprice ofthecomponents ofthealloy.
According totheCommission, initsdecision of21January
1998, there isanagreement between theproducers tothat
effect. The cartel restricts competition toasubstantial
extent, since theundertakings involved produce 90%of
allstainless steel. According totheCommission, those
agreements constitute aninfringement ofArticle 65ofthe
ECSC Treaty.
Theapplicant challenges theCommission’s decision onthe
grounds that:
—even without theagreements allproducers would have
taken steps toadapt prices totheeconomic situation,
—theCommission overestimated theimpact ofthealloy
surcharge onprices andfailed totake account ofthe
circumstances of each individual undertaking
concerned,
—theCommission imposed similar fines onallthe
undertakings concerned, without taking account ofthe
considerable differences between the sizes ofthe
undertakings,
—theCommission infringed therights ofthedefence.
Action brought on20March 1998 byLars BoRasmussen
against theCommission oftheEuropean Communities
(Case T-50/98)
(98/C 137/47)
(Language ofthecase: French)
Anaction against the Commission ofthe European
Communities was brought before theCourt ofFirst
Instance oftheEuropean Communities on20March 1998
by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim
(Luxembourg), represented byCarlo Revoldini, ofthe
Luxembourg Bar,180, route deLongwy .
Theapplicant claims thattheCourt should:
—annul thedecision oftheCommission nottopromote
himtoGrade A4inthe1997 promotions procedure,2.5.98 C137/21 Official Journal oftheEuropean Communities EN