Case T-348/03: Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid system, aid to undertakings, corporation tax, group of companies, tax system

24.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/35

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

Coberco Dairy Foods Holding N.V., established in Meppel
(Netherlands), represented by Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk.

of 20 October 2003

in Case T-46/03 R: Leali SpA v Commission of the
European Communities

(Application for interim measures — Competition — Pay-
ment of fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)

(2004/C 21/74)

(Language of the case: Italian)

the Commission of

In Case T-46/03 R: Leali Spa, whose registered office is in
Odolo (Italy), represented by G. Belotti and G. Vezzoli, lawyers,
I.M. Braguglia)
supported by the Italian Republic (Agent:
against
the European Communities
(Agents: L. Pignataro and A. Whelan) — application for
suspension of operation of
the Commission decision of
17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65
CS (COMP/37.956 — concrete-reinforcing bars), inasmuch as
it imposes upon the applicant,
jointly and severally with
Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA, in liquidation, a fine of
EUR 6,093 million and, solely upon the applicant, a fine of
EUR 1,082 million, the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 20 October 2003, the operative part of
which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Friesland Coberco
Dairy Foods Holding N.V. against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-348/03)

(2004/C 21/75)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 October 2003 by Friesland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

annul Article 2 of Commission Decision of 17 February
2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
for international financing of activities (2003/515/EC) in
so far as it is decided that undertakings which as at
11 July 2001 had already lodged a request with the tax
authority for application of the gfa scheme, but in respect
of which no formal decision had yet been taken, would
not be eligible for the transitional scheme;

2)

order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 27 December the applicant lodged a request with the
Netherlands tax authority to set up a reserve with effect from
1 January 2000 on the basis of the scheme concerning
international financing activities (the gfa scheme).

In the contested decision (1) the Commission found that the
gfa scheme was aid that was incompatible with the common
market and ordered the Netherlands Government to abolish
the scheme. In addition the contested decision provides for a
transitional scheme. The Commission subsequently,
in an
answer to a question from the Netherlands Government,
indicated that this transitional scheme does not apply for
undertakings which, like the applicant, had in fact lodged a
request for application of the gfa scheme before 11 April 2003
but where no decision had yet been taken on that request. The
Netherlands tax authority then rejected the applicant’s request.

In support of its application, the applicant pleads infringement
of general principles of Community law, including the prin-
ciple of equal treatment and the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the general
principles of Community law preclude the restriction of the
transitional scheme to undertakings in respect of which a
decision had been taken as at 11 July 2001. By virtue of that
restriction, undertakings which at that moment had a request
pending before the tax authority for permission to set up a
reserve, and which were therefore just as much entitled to
expect that the gfa scheme was compatible with the Treaty,
are being treated differently without any objective justification.

C 21/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2004

The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 253 EC.
According to the applicant,
the Commission has not
adequately set out the reasons why the transitional rule in
Article 2 of the contested decision must be restricted to
undertakings in respect of which the tax authority had taken a
decision as at 11 July 2001.

(1) 2003/515/EC: Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the
State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).

Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM
KG against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-364/03)

(2004/C 21/77)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf
against Europol

(Case T-355/03)

(2004/C 21/76)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 16 October
2003 by Andreas Mausolf, resident in Leiden (Netherlands),
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. de Casparis.

An action against The Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG,
Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany, represented by Dr Robert
MacLean, Solicitor with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

that, pursuant

to the second paragraph of
Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the Council of Ministers of
the European Union is liable for the damage caused to
the Applicant and order the Council to pay damages to
the Applicant for the sum of 89 286 EUR in interest and
the sum of 81 079 EUR in legal costs of the administrative
procedure, or whatever sums the Court decides appro-
priate;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of

the procedure.

1)

2)

annul the implicit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
complaint challenging the decision of 2 January 2003
and also to annul the decision of 2 January 2003;

order Europol to pay compensation to Andreas Mausolf,
including in any event the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision not to award him an extra
step with effect from 1 July 2002.

The applicant submits that the contested decision contains an
inadequate statement of reasons and thereby conflicts with the
general principle that decisions must state the reasons on
which they are based.

The applicant is a company dealing in leather handbags. In
the course of its business it regularly imported handbags
manufactured by a company based in the People’s Republic of
China. Council Regulation EC 1567/971 (1) imposed a defini-
tive anti-dumping duty on imports of
leather handbags
originating in that country. That Regulation was later amended
by Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November
1998 (2) which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty rate of
0 % on the handbags imported by the applicant.

However, this provision was not given retroactive effect and
consequently duties paid by the applicant until then were not
refunded.