Case T-153/04: Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-06-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EC Decision, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, iron and steel industry, limitation of legal proceedings

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/11

Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Ferriere Nord SpA
against the Commission of the European Communities

13 April 2004 (received by the applicant by fax on 13
April 2004);

(Case T-153/04)

(2004/C 168/20)

(Language of the case: Italian)

— the Commission's power to bring legal proceedings to
enforce its decision of 2 August 1989 is therefore time-
barred.

(1) OJ L 319 of 29.11.1974, p. 1.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Ferriere Nord
SpA, represented by Wilma Viscardini and Gabriele Donà.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the decisions of the
Commission of the European Communities contained in
the registered letter BUDG/C-5/DS (D2004) / 51138 of 5
February 2004, received by the applicant on 13 February
2004, and the fax BUDG/C-05/DS (D2004) 53883, received
by the applicant on 13 April 2004, by which Ferriere Nord
was requested to pay the sums of EUR 564 402.26 and
EUR 341 932.32 respectively in relation to the proceeding
IV/31.553 – Welded steel mesh;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of its complaints, the applicant submits that the
decisions referred to above, which enforce the Commission
decision of 2 August 1989 (in which the applicant was ordered
to pay a fine of ECU 320 000 for infringement of Article 85(1)
of the EEC Treaty) are unlawful because they were adopted
after expiry of the limitation period laid down in Article 4 of
Regulation No 2988/74 of the Council concerning limitation
periods in proceedings and enforcement of sanctions under the
rules of the European Economic Community relating to trans-
port and competition (1). In particular:

— the Commission decision of 2 August 1989 became final
with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 1997
and so, on that date, the limitation period of five years laid
down by Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/74 began to run;

— that period was interrupted by the Commission's letter of
11 September 1997, notified to the applicant on 18
September 1997, with the result
that a new limitation
period of five years started to run (pursuant to Article 5 of
Regulation No 2988/74);

— the Commission therefore should have enforced the deci-
sion imposing the fine by 11 September 2002 or, at the
latest, by 18 September 2002;

— the contested decisions by contrast are those of 5 February
2004 (received by the applicant on 13 February 2004) and

Action brought on 22 April 2004 by Daniel Bauwens
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-154/04)

(2004/C 168/21)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 April 2004 by Daniel Bauwens,
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Nöel Louis and Etienne Marchal lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision to close the procedure for drawing up
his career development report and to dismiss his request to
refer the case to the Joint Evaluation Committee;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant made an application to refer the matter to the
Joint Evaluation Committee contesting his career development
report, as countersigned by the countersigning officer. That
request was held to be out of time, since it was brought after
the deadline of five working days provided for by Article 7 of
the General Provisions for Implementing Articles 43 and 45 of
the Staff Regulations.

The applicant challenges the decision dismissing his application
and drawing up the final report, arguing that the deadline of
five days should have been suspended, in accordance with the
footnote to Article 7 of the General Provisions, on the ground
that he was on leave for a period of two weeks starting from
the day after the formal confirmation of the appraisal by the
countersigning officer. In the same context, the applicant also
relies on a manifest error of assessment and the infringement
of the principles of sound management, sound administration
and equal treatment.