Case T-91/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping legislation, anti-dumping measure, indemnification, piping, tube

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/25

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel
GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities

and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports
originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).

(Case T-91/05)

(2005/C 115/47)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28
February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH, established in Cologne
(Germany), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Community to make good the damage
suffered as a result of the adoption of the definitive anti-
dumping measures prescribed by Council Regulation (EC)
No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, by awarding the
amounts of EUR 1 633 344,33 to the applicant for loss of
profit for the period between June 2000 and December
2002, together with default interest on this amount of 8 %
annually;

— in the alternative, to award a sum to the applicant by way
for the
of compensation for damage for loss of profit
period between June 2000 and December 2002,
to be
assessed during the proceedings, following an interlocutory
judgement of the Court, by agreement between the parties,
and if no agreement is reached, by a final judgment of the
Court;

— order that all costs occasioned by the applicant

in the
course of the present proceedings be borne by the Council
and the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an importer of seamless pipes and tubes in the
Community and is affected by the measures imposed by
Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain
seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating
in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and
the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93

also

Commission

Commission Decision
adopted
The
2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding
under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seam-
less steel tubes) (2), and imposing a fine on several Community
producers of seamless pipes and tubes.

The applicant claims that, given the overlap in the product
scope, the companies involved and the periods of investigation
of the competition and anti-dumping proceedings, the anti-
competitive conduct of the Community producers affected the
injury and causality analysis of the anti-dumping proceedings.
The applicant submits that the defendants failed to take into
account the anti-competitive conduct in their assessment of the
injury caused by the imports and therefore breached Council
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protec-
tion against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (3) and infringed their obligation of
good and sound administration and due care and diligence. The
applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of legitimate
expectations and proportionality.

The applicant states that the defendants have recognised in
Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 of 16 July 2004
amending Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive
anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and
tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Russia
and Romania (4) that the outcome of the analysis in the anti-
dumping proceedings could have been different if the anti-
competitive conduct had been considered.

The applicant
therefore claims damages for loss of profit
suffered by it for the period between June 2000 and December
2002.

(1) OJ L 322, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2003 L 140, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 56, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 246, p. 10.