Case C-405/04 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2004 by Nippon Steel Corp. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EFTA, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), fine, judicial proceedings, piping, proof, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice, steel, trade restriction, tube

C 284/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.11.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Japan, represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove,

Tokyo,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

(a) the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the
wrong standard of proof in a case where the Appellant has
demonstrated that the Commission's allegation is incompa-
tible with the Appellant's commercial interest and therefore
irrational;

(b) the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the
wrong standard of proof in a case where the documentary
evidence is ambiguous and the Appellant has offered a
plausible alternative explanation of the conduct at issue;

(c) the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the
wrong legal standard of proof as to the level of corrobora-
tion required in support of contested statements which the
Commission uses as principal evidence but which are
implausible, highly ambiguous and contradicted by other
evidence;

(d) the Court of First Instance erred in law by giving contradic-
tory and inadequate reasons in concluding that the state-
ment of Mr Becher (an employee of Mannesmann) of 21
April 1997 could corroborate the statements of Mr
Verluca, Head of Vallourec Oil & Gas, regarding the alleged
infringement in respect of project line pipe.

Appeal brought on 22 September 2004 by Nippon Steel
Corp. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00,
T-71/00 and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp.,
Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal
the European
Industries Ltd and the Commission of

Communities

(Case C-405/04 P)

(2004/C 284/20)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00
and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel
Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd and
the Commission of the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 September 2004 by Nippon Steel Corp., established in

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 8 July 2004 in joined cases T-
67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering
Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto
Metal Industries Ltd v Commission in so far as it concerns
Nippon Steel Corporation;

— annul

the decision of

the European Commission of 8
December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81
the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B Seamless steel
of
tubes) in so far as it concerns Nippon Steel Corporation; or

— in the alternative, if the Appellant is successful in its appeal
only in so far as it concerns project line pipe, reduce the
fine imposed on Nippon Steel Corporation by two-thirds;
and

— order the Commission to bear all the costs before the Court

of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

(a) the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the
wrong standard of proof in a case where the Appellant has
demonstrated that the Commission's allegation is incompa-
tible with the Appellant's commercial interest and therefore
irrational;

(b) the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the
wrong standard of proof in a case where the documentary
evidence is ambiguous and the Appellant has offered a
plausible alternative explanation of the conduct at issue;

(c) the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the
wrong legal standard of proof as to the level of corrobora-
tion required in support of contested statements which the
Commission uses as principal evidence but which are
implausible, highly ambiguous and contradicted by other
evidence;

(d) the Court of First Instance erred in law by giving contradic-
tory and inadequate reasons in concluding that the state-
ment of Mr Becher (an employee of Mannesmann) of 21
April 1997 could corroborate the statements of Mr
Verluca, Head of Vallourec Oil & Gas, regarding the alleged
infringement in respect of project line pipe.