Case T-163/02: Action brought on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel and three other companies against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-08-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), customs duties, import, indemnification, iron and steel product, protective clause

C 191/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2002

— in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group
‘alloy hot rolled flat products’ to 468 000 tonnes (2001
import volume);

Furthermore, the Commission acted in breach of primary and
secondary Community legislation,
the principle of equal
treatment and the WTO Agreement.

— in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group
‘alloy hot rolled flat products’ to 118 916 tonnes.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002
imports of

imposing provisional safeguard measures against
certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesellschaft
Voss mbH Stahlhandel and three other companies against
the Commission of the European Communities

The applicants are importers of steel products affected by the
contested regulation. That regulation opened tariff quotas in
respect of the importation of 15 products into the Community.
Imports of those products in excess of the volume laid down
by the relevant tariff quota will
incur additional customs
duties.

(Case T-163/02)

(2002/C 191/49)

(Language of the case: German)

The applicants claim that the levels set for the free tariff quotas,
in particular in respect of product group 4, cannot be
reconciled with the recitals in the preamble to the regulation.
For product group 4 alone there is a shortfall of 95 129 tonnes.
No reason is given for why the tariff quotas set in the
regulation do not comply with the regulation’s aims, as
determined by the defendant itself, or with its own formula for
the calculation of those quotas.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesell-
schaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel, Planegg (Germany),
Jepsen
Stahl GmbH, Nittendorf (Germany), LNS-Lothar Niemeyer
Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, Essen (Germany) and Metal
Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented
by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

In addition, the applicants submit that the statement of reasons
for the regulation is also defective in that in the recitals in the
preamble there is no examination whatever of the interests of
all market operators affected by the regulation. No reasons are
given for why the purported aim of the regulation can be
achieved only by the measures set out therein, why only the
interests of Community manufacturers are protected while the
interests of other market actors are not take into account, or
why the measures adopted in the regulation took effect
immediately and without any vacatio legis. All those deficiencies
in the statement of reasons constitute a material breach
of procedural requirements which renders the contested
regulation void.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of

27 March 2002 (1);

— declare that the defendant must pay compensation to the
applicants for the present and future damage suffered by
them as a result of the nullity of Regulation (EC) No 560/
2002 of 27 March 2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants additionally claim that the regulation pursues
different aims to those stated in the preamble and that the
Commission misused its discretionary powers. The failure to
observe the purported aim of ‘maintaining the current import
level plus 10 % thereof ’ is particularly clear evidence that
other aims are being pursued.

The applicants import steel products from countries outside
the European Communities. They object
to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 and claim that the conditions
for the introduction of provisional safeguard measures within
the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of
22 December 1994 (2), as the basic regulation on which the
contested regulation is based, are not met.

10.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 191/29

The applicants claim that the contested regulation is unlawful
and infringes their rights. The Commission was not em-
powered to issue the regulation in its present form. In addition,
the required investigation procedure was not implemented
before, but at the same time as, or only after, the regulation
was issued.

The applicants further
the regulation, and
submit
Annexes 1.1 to 2.1 thereto, have a dubious factual basis. On
27 March 2002, the data listed in those annexes were, in fact,
not yet available to the Commission, because EUROSTAT had
not yet received all the information for 2001.

that

In addition, the applicants claim that the contested regulation
is also unlawful on substantive grounds as the measures it
lays down are disproportionate. The additional duties are
prohibitively high and, with the exception of developing
countries, the safeguard measures apply without distinction to
all countries.

Finally, the applicants claim that, given the circumstances, the
provisional safeguard measures are incompatible with the rules
laid down by the World Trade Organisation and GATT, and
infringe European Agreements concluded by the Council and
the Commission with certain non-member countries.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002
imports of

imposing provisional safeguard measures against
certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on
the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC)
No 518/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision 2002/229/EC of 13 Novem-
ber 2001 on the aid scheme which the Sardinia Region
(Italy) is planning to implement for the restructuring of
holdings in difficulty in the protected crops sector (OJ
2002 L 77, p. 29)

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision which is at issue in the present case concerns a
regional aid scheme for the restructuring of holdings in
difficulty in the protected crops sector (flowers and vegetables)
in Sardinia, adopted pursuant to Law No 4/98 of the Sardinian
Region, which specifically concerns action to be taken in
favour of small and medium-sized agricultural holdings in
difficulty.

In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:

— breach or misapplication of Article 88(3) of the Treaty,
the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
restructuring firms in difficulty (1) and of the principle of
legitimate
spent
assessing whether the aid was compatible with the
common market was unreasonably long.

expectations. Moreover

time

the

— breach or misapplication of Article 87 of the Treaty and
lack of a proper

the abovementioned guidelines,

of
inquiry and inadequate statement of reasons.

Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma
della Sardegna against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-171/02)

(2002/C 191/50)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In that regard, the applicant points out that, although the
the regional plan in
Commission first became aware of
question on 15 January 1998, the decision finding the aid
unlawful was not adopted until 13 November 2001. During
that time, there was an exchange of correspondence between
the defendant and the Italian authorities with the purpose of
clarifying the scope and effects of the notified aid project.
However, by the contested decision, the Commission has
firmly declared the project unlawful, furthermore, according
to the applicant, by reference to aspects which were perfectly
clear from the earliest exchanges.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2002 by the Regione
Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Giacomo Aiello of
the Avvocatura dello Stato.

The applicant further claims that the contested scheme is
compatible with the guidelines for rescuing and restructuring
firms in difficulties and that there was no basis in the inquiry