Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2003 in Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Control of concentrations — Concentration covered partly by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty — Decision to authorise on the basis of Article 66(2) CS — Decision declaring compatibility with the common market on the basis of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Conditions for admissibility under the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty — Relationship between the rules on control of concentrations laid down in the ECSC Treaty and the EC Treaty — Duty to state reasons — Erroneous assessment)
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, restriction on competition, small and medium-sized enterprises, tube

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/29

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe GmbH to bear their
own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay two thirds of the
Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to bear one
third of its own costs.

( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M.
Judges; Registrar: D. Christensen,
Administrator, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003, in which
it:

Jaeger,

1. Declared the application to be inadmissible in so far as it seeks
annulment of Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of 14 September
2000;

2. Declared the application to be admissible but unfounded in so
far as it seeks annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045 of
5 September 2000;

3. Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay
those incurred by the Commission and by Salzgitter and
Mannesmann.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(1) OJ No C 61 of 24.2.01.

of 8 July 2003

in Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV and
Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Control of concentrations — Concentration covered partly
by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty — Decision
to authorise on the basis of Article 66(2) CS — Decision
declaring compatibility with the common market on the basis
of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 —
Conditions for admissibility under the ECSC Treaty and the
EC Treaty — Relationship between the rules on control of
concentrations laid down in the ECSC Treaty and the EC
Treaty — Duty to state reasons — Erroneous assessment)

(2003/C 213/55)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV, estab-
lished in Düsseldorf
(Germany), Eisen- und Metallwerke
Ferndorf GmbH, established in Kreuztal-Ferndorf (Germany),
Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG, established in Siegen
(Germany), represented by H. Hellmann, lawyer, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
W. Wils), supported by Mannesmann AG, established in
Düsseldorf, represented by K. Moosecker and P. Niggemann,
lawyers, and by Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter
(Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers
— application for annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045
of 5 September 2000 and Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of
14 September 2000, by which the Commission authorised, on
the basis of, respectively, Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
No 4064/89 and Article 66(2) CS, the acquisition by Salzgitter
of control of Mannesmannröhren-Werke — the Court of First

of 9 July 2003

in Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Officials — Repayment of mission expenses — Business
class air travel)

(2003/C 213/56)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
bourg, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
H. Tserepa-Lacombe), — application for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 24 March 2000 making three
‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts and
in
charging to the applicant
addition, a request that the Commission should be ordered to
repay to the applicant
the amounts deducted from his
remuneration by way of sums overclaimed, — the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
9 July 2003, in which it:

the sums overclaimed and,

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2003 making
three ‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts
and charging to the applicant the sums overclaimed inasmuch