Case T-45/03: Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), building industry, fine, restriction on competition

C 101/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

or at the very least confidential,
information by the
representative of the European Commission in Marseille;

— order the defendant to pay all the recoverable costs,

which amounts to EUR 10 000.

were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek
frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of
an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;

— annul all

the applicants’

reimbursement statements
implementing the decisions annulment of which is
sought;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that, during a meeting in Marseille on
23 January 2003, a representative of the defendant divulged
deceitful or at the very least confidential information. Such
disclosure resulted in damage for which it seeks compensation
in the present application. In support of its arguments, the
applicant alleges non-contractual liability of the defendant in
the context of Article 288 EC and alleged breach of the
confidentiality obligation imposed on the representative of the
defendant by Article 287 EC.

Action brought on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef
and Others against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-44/03)

(2003/C 101/73)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and 49
other officials, represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
changing, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the
period within those years during which the applicants
were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling
to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken
into consideration for certain destinations;

alternatively,

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
to reimburse, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the
period within those years during which the applicants

— pay the applicants the entire amount which is outstanding
as a result of
the decisions
the implementation of
annulment of which is sought, together with interest at
the legal rate;

— order the Commission to pay the costs, expenses and fees

incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of the
decision of the Commission changing the procedure for
calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece.

In support of
the (main and alternative) arguments for
annulment, the applicants essentially rely on six pleas in law
alleging, first, infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regu-
lations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII
thereto;
second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination; third,
infringement of the rights of the defence; fourth, breach of the
principle that arbitrary procedures are prohibited and of the
obligation to provide a statement of reasons; fifth, breach of
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’; and sixth, breach
of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
officials.

Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-45/03)

(2003/C 101/74)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio
S.p.A., represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, Massimo Merola,
Maurizio Pappalardo and Federica Martin, lawyers.

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Primarily:

1.

annul Article 1 of the decision in so far as it states that
the applicant was involved in a single, comprehensive
and ongoing cartel in the Italian market for solid and
hollow round reinforcing rods, the purpose of effect of
which was to fix prices by,
inter alia, restricting or
controlling production or sales;

2.

annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision in so far as
it imposes a fine of EUR 26,9 million on the applicant;

In the alternative:

— reduce the fine of EUR 26,9 million imposed on the

applicant by Article 2 of the decision, and

In any event:

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— partially annul, on the basis of Article 230, EC Treaty,
Council Decision 2002/947/EC of 12 December 2002
implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/
2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
certain persons and entities with a view to combating
terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 337,
p. 85) and more specifically annul Article 1, point 1.25
of said decision and annul partially Article 1, point 2.14
of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the
applicant;

— declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241, EC Treaty,
Council Regulation EC 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001
on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
(OJ L 344, p. 7);

— require the Community to compensate the applicant on
the basis of article 235 and 288 in an amount to be fixed
ex aequo et bono of not less than EUR 100 000;

— require the respondent parties to bear the costs of suit.

The present action is brought against the same decision as that
challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
in that case.

Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-47/03)

(2003/C 101/75)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communitie was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht, the Netherlands,
represented by Mr Jan Fermon, Lawyer.

The applicant lives in the Netherlands and,
in 1992, was
recognized as a refugee in accordance with the Geneva Refugee
Convention because of valid reasons of fear of persecution in
the Philippines. The applicant was active in the Communist
Party of the Philippines and is a consultant for the negotiating
panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in
the peace negotiations with the government.

On 28 October 2002, the Council adopted decision 2002/
848/EC (1) and included the applicant on the list made pursuant
to article 2 (3) of Regulation 2580/2001 on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities with a
view to combatting terrorism (2). The applicant was also
included in the list adopted by decision 2002/974/EC (3) of
12 December 2002. This last act is being contested in the
present application.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes a violation
of the obligation to state reasons, a patent error of judgment
and a violation of the principle of sound administration. The
applicant indicates that he has not, as an alias, Armando
Liwanag and is not in charge of the New People’s Army (NPA).
The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision
violates the principle of proportionality and the freedom of
circulation of capital.