Case T-276/02: Action brought on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187 asbl against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, multinational enterprise

C 289/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.11.2002

the transactions of

technique’. Using this technique,
the
applicants that are made at a price higher then the average
price, are brought down to a price equal to the average price.
According to the applicants, the Commission did not apply
the average-to-transaction methodology correctly as a result
of using the ‘zeroing technique’. The applicants submit that
the objective of the average-to-transaction methodology is to
ensure a fair comparison and not to yield higher dumping
margins.

( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2479/2001 of 17 December
2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
recordable compact disks originating in Taiwan (OJ L 334, p. 8).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002 imposing
a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of recordable compact disks
originating in Taiwan (OJ L 160, p. 2).

( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community (OJ 1996, L 56, p. 1).

Action brought on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187 asbl
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-276/02)

(2002/C 289/52)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187
asbl, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr Alastair Sutton,
barrister and Mr James Killick, barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission’s Notice of its decision to initiate
the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty
published in the OJ C 147, p. 2 on 20 June 2002.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an association bringing together more than
230 multinational companies, who together have invested
hundreds of millions of euros in the establishment of coordi-
nation centres in Belgium, based on legislation dating from the
early 1980s permitting the establishment of coordination
centres for multinational companies.
It explains that this
legislation was found by the Commission on two separate
occasions in 1984 and 1987 to fall outside Community rules
on state aids and that, encouraged by these findings, the
coordination centres invested in Belgium and have, over the
last 15 years, significantly expanded their presence there.

The applicant states that the Commission’s decision to initiate
the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of this
Belgian legislation (the contested decision) abruptly, arbitrarily
and without any adequate reasoning re-classifies it as an aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) and reaches preliminary
negative conclusions as to its compatibility with the common
market, thereby ‘at a stroke’ removing legal certainty and
infringing the legitimate expectations of the Belgian Coordi-
nation Centres.

The applicant submits that the Commission’s decision is
unlawful, being in breach of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 659/
1999, and has no other basis in Community law. The
Commission’s alternative legal basis for its decision to the
effect that it is entitled to reverse a decision taken 15 years
earlier (either under Article 1(b)(v) or under general adminis-
trative principles) is likewise unfounded in Community law
and should be annulled. In particular, this alternative legal
basis for the Commission decision infringes the principles of
legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The applicant
considers therefore that, especially taking into account the
novel legal basis upon which the decision purports to be taken
and the substantial economic interests involved, the decision
is inadequately reasoned, in breach of Article 253, and should
be annulled.

Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Dyson Limited
against the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-278/02)

(2002/C 289/53)

(Language of the case: English)

— Take such other or further steps as justice may require.

An action against the Office for the Harmonisation in the
Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance