Case T-74/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-05-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), carbon, distributive trades

24.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/25

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities

— find the defendant liable for the harm suffered by the
applicants as a result of the attack on 27 March 2002 on
the Park Hotel in Netanya (Israel);

— order the defendant, in respect of the harm suffered by

the applicants, to pay the following amounts:

— to Lucien Zaoui, EUR 1 million in compensation for

non-material damage;

— to Bernard Zaoui, EUR 1,5 million, in compensation

for non-material damage;

— to Déborah Stain, née Zaoui:

(Case T-74/03)

(2003/C 124/44)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.,
Lomm (Netherlands), represented by M. Karl, Rechtsanwalt.

— EUR 1 million in respect of bodily injury;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— EUR 2 millions in respect of non-material

damage;

— annul the Commission’s decision of 17 December 2002

(Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Special Graphite);

— an amount

to be settled in the course of

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3(h)

proceedings for material damage.

of the decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are relatives of Mrs Zaoui, who died on
27 March 2002 when a Palestinian terrorist carried out an
in Israel. The applicants claim that the
attack on a hotel
education in the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and in
the Gaza strip is the certain and direct cause of the attack
which cost Mrs Zaoui her life, since that education incites
individuals to hatred and terrorism. They claim that the
defendant participated financially in that form of education,
the content of which it was presumably aware of and on which
it could have an influence. According to the applicants, the
defendant also infringed the provisions applicable to the
financial support programmes (Articles 6 and 177(2) of the
EC Treaty), the principles of sound financial management, the
agreements entered into between the Communities and the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian
refugees (UNRWA), Article 3 of Regulation No 1488/96/EC
and Amendment No 177 to the 2002 EC General Budget. In
that context, they claim that the liability of the Communities
has been incurred by virtue of the second paragraph of
Article 288 of the EC Treaty.

The applicant distributes isostatically pressed special graphite,
but does not itself produce it. Its activity in the European
special graphite market is based on a cooperation agreement
between itself and Ibiden Co. Ltd., a Japanese producer
of isostatic special graphite. The Commission accused the
applicant, a former subsidiary of
the latter and various
producers of isostatic special graphite (including Ibiden) of
taking part
in a continuing agreement and/or concerted
practice on the market for special graphite in the European
Community and the European Economic Area. According to
the Commission’s finding, the applicant participated from
February 1994 to May 1997 at European and regional level.

The applicant argues that
the Commission has wrongly
classified it as an offender. In reality, at least for the period up
to 26 September 1995, the applicant could only be classified
as a helper of Ibiden. According to Article 15(2) of Regulation
No 17, a helper cannot be punished with a fine. The applicant
further maintains that the Commission ignored several mitigat-
ing circumstances, particularly the subsidiary role of the
applicant, and the fact that it voluntarily ended its participation
long before the other participants and long before the Com-
mission first intervened.

C 124/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2003

The applicant further argues that the fine is flagrantly dispro-
portionate to its economic strength and is therefore a breach
of the principle of proportionality and the Commission’s
guidelines on fines. The Commission also breached the
principle of equal treatment by not fining any of the other
marketing companies involved in the cartel and, furthermore,
by imposing fines on the participating manufacturers which,
measured in relation to turnover, were far lower than that
determined in relation to the applicant. Since the Commission
gave no reason for that worse treatment, there was also an
infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253
EC.

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
in the abovementioned case. The applicant claims that there is
no such single undertaking as Siderpotenza-Lucchini and,
therefore, that the applicant is substantially unconnected to
the infringement which is the subject of the decision. In point
of fact, the Commission has not take into account of the fact
that Lucchini SpA has never produced concrete reinforcing
bars.

Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-80/03)

(2003/C 124/45)

(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 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.,
represented by Alberto Santa Maria and Claudio Biscaretti di
Ruffia, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 17 December 2002 C(2002)5087
final in Case COMP/37.956 — concrete reinforcing bars,
imposing on Lucchini SpA, jointly and severally with S.P.
SpA, previously known as Siderpotenza SpA, a fine of
EUR 16,14 million;

Action brought on 5 March 2003 by the Government
of the Cayman Islands against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-85/03)

(2003/C 124/46)

(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 5 March 2003 by the Government
the Cayman Islands, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands,
of
represented by Ms Eleanor Sharpston, QC.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision not to respond to the
urgent request of the Cayman Islands Government to
establish a Partnership Working Party under the Overseas
Association Decision,

— order the Commission to pay the Cayman Islands Govern-

ment’s costs.

— in the alternative,

reduce the fine imposed on the

applicant by the Commission;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the decision
contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.

The Decision challenged in the current case is the Com-
mission’s Decision not to respond to the urgent request of the
applicant for the establishment of a Partnership Working Party
(‘PWP’),
in accordance with Article 7 of Council Decision
2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the
overseas countries and territories (OCTs) within the European
Community (1). The request was made in order to consider
OCT representations in relation to the proposal for a Council
Directive on taxation of savings income in the form of interest
payments and/or the automatic exchange of information.