Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2003 in Case T-46/03 R: Leali SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Competition — Payment of fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition, fine, iron and steel industry

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.