Judgment of the Court of 24 April 2002 in Case T-220/96: Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act — Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 — Embargo on trade with Iraq — Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation — Causal link)
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, Iraq, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, arms industry, international sanctions

29.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/13

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 April 2002

of 20 March 2002

in Case T-220/96: Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO) v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act — Regulation
(EEC) No 2340/90 — Embargo on trade with Iraq —
Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation — Causal
link)

(2002/C 156/23)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case T-220/96, Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO),
established in Athens (Greece), represented by T. Fortsakis,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council
of the European Union (Agent: S. Kyriakopoulou) and Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-
Durande): Application for compensation for the damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990
preventing trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait
(OJ 1990 L 213, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonza´lez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 April 2002, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.

in Case T-9/99, HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Betei-
ligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Others v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott —
Fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Objection of illegality
— Non-retroactivity — Rights of defence — Leniency notice)

(2002/C 156/24)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-9/99: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteili-
gungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Rosenheim
(Germany), HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-
gesellschaft mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft, established in
Rosenheim,
Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft
mbH, established in Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
Gesellschaft mbH, established in Hohenberg Austria, Isoplus
Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, established in Sondershausen (Ger-
many), represented by P. Krömer and F. Nusterer, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and E´ . Gippini
Fournier) — application for, primarily, annulment of Com-
mission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998 relating to
a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/
35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1)
or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the
applicants by that decision — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili
and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonza´lez, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 March
2002, in which it:

1. Annuls Articles 3(d) and 5(d) of Commission Decision 1999/
60/EC of 21 October 1999 relating to a proceeding under
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691.E-4: — Pre-
Insulated Pipe Cartel) in so far as it relates to HFB Holding für
Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and
HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft
mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own
costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings,
and to pay 80 % of the costs incurred by the Commission,
including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;