Case T-47/03: Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, economic sanctions, international sanctions, refugee, restriction of liberty, terrorism

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.

C 101/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

The applicant also invokes the violation of several general
principles of Community Law, such as the principles enshrined
in Articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on
Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto.

The applicant finally invokes the illegality of Regulation 2580/
2001. According to the applicant,
the Council had no
competence to adopt this regulation. The applicant claims that
Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty are not sufficient
nor do they explicitly authorise the Council to issue such a
regulation. In this respect, the applicant also invokes a violation
of
the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal
certainty and a misuse of power by the Council.

( 1) 2002/848/EC: Council Decision

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 295, p. 12).

28 October

of

( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 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).
( 3) 2002/974/EC: Council Decision 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
2002/848/EC (OJ L 337, p. 85).

Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Schneider
Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-48/03)

(2003/C 101/76)

(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 10 February 2003 by Schneider
Electric S.A., whose registered office is at Rueil-Malmaison
(France), represented by Antoine Winckler and Marc Pittie,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of
4 December 2002 based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council

Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/M.2283
Schneider/Legrand);

— annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of
13 December 2002 whereby the Commission closed Case
COMP/M.2283 Schneider/Legrand;

— order production of the market studies carried out in

November 2002 in the context of Case COMP/M.2283;

— order the Commission to produce, on the assumption
that they exist, the minutes of
the
Commission at which the decision to close the case was
adopted and the decision delegating a power of signature
to the Director-General for Competition and authorising
him to sign the decision closing the case;

the meeting of

— order the Commission to reimburse the costs incurred in

connection with the present actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 10 October 2001, the Commission adopted a decision
declaring Schneider’s public exchange offer in respect of all the
shares in Legrand held by the public to be incompatible with
the common market (1). As Schneider had closed its public
offer before that decision was taken, the Commission adopted
a further decision of 30 January 2002 ordering Schneider to
divest itself of Legrand. The applicant challenged both these
decisions in Cases T-301/01 and T-77/02. The Court of First
Instance annulled the decisions by judgment of 22 October
2002.

On 4 December 2002, the Commission adopted a decision to
initiate proceedings, after declaring that the concentration
raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common
market and opened the second phase investigation. The
applicant subsequently informed the Commission that as it
had divested itself of Legrand, on 10 December, the proceed-
ings had become devoid of purpose. On 13 December 2002,
the Commission closed the file (2).

In the present case, the applicant challenges the Commission
decisions of 4 and 13 December 2002. The applicant states
that the true effect of the decisions is to prohibit irremediably
the union between Schneider and Legrand. In light of the
obligation to implement the divestiture decision in good faith
and the fact that it was impossible to secure provision by
financial investors of the amounts necessary for an additional
period in excess of four months, the deadline for disposing of