Case C-57/02 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compañía Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-48/98 between Compañía Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, action for annulment (EU), competition law, fine, public sector, steel

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/29

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case
of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden

(Case C-56/02)

(2002/C 109/49)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 22 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt
(Principal Customs Office) Weiden on the following question:

Is Article 187, second paragraph, of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (OJ 1992
to be interpreted as meaning that, where
L 302, p. 1)
compensating products that are declared as returned goods are
released for free circulation, the factual particulars required to
calculate the import duties legally owed on those compensating
products must also be declared and proved, or is it for the
endorsing customs office, so far as possible, to ascertain those
factual particulars from the supervising office using an INF 1
sheet, pursuant to the procedure established in Article 613 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community
Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), in the version in force
until 30 June 2001?

(1) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.

was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 22 February 2002 by Compan˜ ı´a Espan˜ ola
para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox), established in
Madrid, Spain, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested judgment of

the Court of First
Instance of 13 December 2001 in case T-48/98; as well
as

— annul the Commission’s decision of 21 January 1998
fining the Appellant or at the very least substantially
reduce the amount of the fine, or alternatively refer the
case back to the Court of First Instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is flawed for the following reasons:

— the Court of First Instance based its findings with regard
to Acerinox’s participation in the alleged cartel in Spain
on a manifestly erroneous construction of the Appellant’s
pleadings and therefore failed to properly motivate its
judgment on this point;

Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compan˜ ı´a
Espan˜ ola para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in case T-48/98 between
Compan˜ ı´a Espan˜ ola para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A.
(Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case C-57/02 P)

(2002/C 109/50)

rejection of

— the Court of First Instance failed to adequately motivate
its
its
implementation of the alloy surcharge outside Spain,
which did not follow the pattern allegedly agreed in
December 1993, reflected mere parallelism of conduct;

the Appellant’s argument

that

— the Court of First Instance has applied an erroneous legal
test in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement;

— even if an infringement could be said to continue for as
long as its consequences are felt (rather than for as
long as some concertation continues to exist between
undertakings), the Court of First Instance failed to motiv-
ate its rejection as irrelevant of the Appellant’s argument
that, in July 1994, the price of nickel reached its original
level;

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in case T-48/98 (1) between
Compan˜ ı´a Espan˜ ola para la Fabricacio´ n de Aceros S.A. (Aceri-
nox) and the Commission of the European Communities,

— the Court of First Instance failed to properly motivate its
rejection of the Appellant’s argument concerning the
disproportionate level of its fine when its position on the
market is compared to that of other addressees of the
decision;

C 109/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

— in refusing to grant the Appellant the same reduction of
fine as that granted to other participants because the
Appellant denied its participation in an infringement,
the Court of First Instance has violated fundamental
principles of law (right of defence) recognised by the
Court of Justice in its case-law.

(1) OJ C 137, 02.05.98, p. 20.

Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission
the United
of

the European Communities against
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-62/02)

(2002/C 109/52)

Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission
of European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-58/02)

(2002/C 109/51)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Febru-
ary 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Michael Shotter,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Luis Escobar, Wagner Centre, C 254.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection
of services based on, or consisting of, conditional
access (1), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-44/02 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 28 May 2000.

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 26 February 2002 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
availability of consumer information on fuel economy
and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
passenger cars (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 12(1) and 12(2) of this
Directive;

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 18 January 2001 without the United Kingdom
having informed the Commission of the provisions adopted to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the
Commission.

Since the Commission is in possession of no other information
enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted
the necessary provision, it is compelled to assume that the
United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Directive.

(1) OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54.
(2) OJ C 97, 20.4.2002, p. 4.

(1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.