Case C-73/02 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), fine, iron and steel industry, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/35

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

(a)

Failure to implement Article 8(6) of Directive 97/66.

Article 6(6) of Decree No 171/98 only partially
implements Article 8(6) of the directive in question, since
it makes no reference to the obligation to inform the
public of the possibilities set out in Articles 8(1), (2), (3)
and (4) of that directive to prevent the presentation of
CLI (‘calling line identification’) of incoming calls if CLI
has been eliminated, and of the possibility of eliminating
the presentation of connected line identification to the
calling user.

(b)

Failure to implement Article 9(b) of Directive 97/66.

Article 9(b) of the directive places an obligation on the
Member States to ensure that
there are procedures
governing the elimination of the presentation of calling
line identification on a per-line basis for organisations
dealing with emergency calls and recognised as such by a
Member State, for the purpose of answering such calls.
The Italian legislation does not appear to have implement-
ed that provision.

(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment delivered
on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen
Stainless GmbH and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA and Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case C-73/02 P)

(2002/C 109/60)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and
T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai
Speciali Terni SpA and Commission of the European Com-
munities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities on 8 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, represented by Giulia Di Tommaso
and Andrea Giardina, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

I.

set aside the judgment, on the ground that it applied
Community law wrongly and inconsistently, in so far as
it confirms the decision of the Commission of 21 January
1998 No 98/247/ECSC to impose a fine on the appellant
despite the fact that it belonged to the KTS Group;

In the alternative:

II.

III.

set aside the judgment, on the ground that it misapplied
Community law, in so far as it confirms Article 1 of
the decision of the Commission of 21 January 1998
No 98/247/ECSC, according to which the infringement
of the rules of competition imputed to AST is held to
have continued until the date of the decision itself;

set aside the judgment, on the ground that it infringed
the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination,
in so far as it does not uphold the appellant’s request that
the fine be reduced by 40 % in view of the appellant’s
cooperation in the course of the procedure;

in any event,

IV. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The appellant claims that the contested judgment should be
set aside on the following grounds:

— erroneous and inconsistent application of Community
law by imposing a fine on AST despite the fact that AST
belongs to the KTS group, which was subject to a fixed-
sum fine;

— misapplication of Community law in finding that the
the competition rules by AST was

infringement of
continuous;

— breach of

the principle of equaltreatment and non-
discrimination in the reduction applied to the fine in
consideration of the appellant’s cooperation during the
procedure.