Case T-152/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), electrical equipment, fine, guarantee, interest, iron and steel industry

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/11

The second plea alleges obvious error by the Commission in
assessing the quality of
the tenders, giving the tender by
Carlson Wagonlit Travel the highest mark for the quality of the
services offered, whereas that tender was unable to allow suffi-
cient quality for the services concerned to be guaranteed.

antee. The applicant claims that it should not be treated as a
party in default in the light of its decision to appeal against the
decision imposing the fine and the nature and content of the
negotiations undertaken in good faith.

(1) Contract No ADMIN/D1/PR/2003/131 (OJ S 143).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23
December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Finan-
cial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by GRAFTECH INTER-
NATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-152/04)

(2004/C 179/22)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2004 by GRAFTECH
INTERNATIONAL LTD., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, repre-
sented by K.P.E. Lasok QC and Brian Hartnett Barristers with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alternatively, amend the contested decision, in exercise of
the Court's unlimited jurisdiction, so as to cause interest at
8.04 % to run only as from 30 September 2003, or as to
reduce the rate of interest;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant furthermore claims that the Commission acted
contrary to Article 86(5) of Regulation 2342/2002 (2).

The applicant also claims that the conduct of the Commission
allowed the applicant to legitimately expect that an interest rate
of 6.04 % would be imposed.

The applicant invokes a violation of the principle of good
administration because the Commission failed to agree on an
appropriate form of a financial guarantee. Also, the applicant
claims that the Commission failed to give clear notice that the
higher interest rate would be levied during the period of nego-
tiation.

the applicant claims that

Finally,
the contested decision is
disproportionate. According to the applicant, the justification
for the default rate of interest is to deter dilatory behaviour and
not to penalise bona fide negotiations that the Commission has
willingly embarked upon and continued at its own pace.

(1) 2002/271/EC: Commission Decision of 18 July 2001 relating to a
proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
EEA Agreement - Case COMP/E-1/36.490 - Graphite electrodes (OJ
2002 L 100, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23
December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Finan-
cial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (OJ L 357, p. 1).

Action brought on 23 April 2004 by ALENIA MARCONI
the European
SYSTEMS SpA against Commission of

Communities

(Case T-155/04)

(2004/C 179/23)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The subject matter of this action is a decision of the Commis-
sion, contained in a letter of 17 February 2004, by which the
Commission required the applicant to pay interest on a fine
imposed by a Commission Decision of 18 July 2001 (1) at the
rate of 8.04 % instead of 6.04 %.

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2004 against Commission
of
European Communities by ALENIA MARCONI
SYSTEMS SpA, represented by Francesco Sciaudone, Lawyer.

the

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
Commission has acted unlawfully in seeking to impose the
higher of the two possible interest rates. According to the
applicant, the delay in the payment of the fine or the provision
of a satisfactory financial guarantee for the fine was due to the
recognition by the Commission that the applicant could not
pay the fine and the efforts by both parties to reach an agree-
ment on what would constitute a satisfactory financial guar-

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Order the Commission to produce to the Court of First
the records available to it concerning the

Instance all
complaint lodged by the applicant;

— Annul and/or amend the contested decision;