Case T-44/06: Action brought on  14 February 2006  — Commission v Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias — Hellenic Ventures S.A. — and five other defendants
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, appeal, early-stage capital, financial aid, financial control, investment, redemption, termination of a contract

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/37

In support of his application, the applicant relies on several
pleas in law alleging inter alia the unlawfulness of the form of
the decision of Parliament whose annulment
its
is sought,
law such as legal
inconsistency with general principles of
certainty and protection of legitimate expectations and proce-
dural irregularities at the time of its adoption. He also submits
that the contested decision is contrary to the precedents set by
previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the
European Parliament as regards freedom of expression and
fumus persecutionis and that it undermines the independence of
an elected representative in that, according to the applicant, it
is disputed that he spoke in the exercise of his national and
European political activities at the press conference in question.

Action brought on 19 February 2006 — Cofira SAC v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-43/06)

(2006/C 86/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofira SAC (Rousset Cedex, France) (represented by:
Girolamo Addessi, Leonilda Mari, Daniella Magurno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul the fine imposed on Cofira SAC;

— impose the fines jointly and severally on all the companies
that came into existence upon the demerger of Cofira
Sepso;

— reduce the amount of the fine;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

ment common models, calculate prices, share markets, allocate
sales quotas, customers, business and orders, collude in under-
mining certain invitations to tender and exchange individual
information.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains first and fore-
most that the decision should not have been addressed to it.

In this regard, it is pointed out that on 27 November 2003
COFIRA SEPSO, which, along with other concerns, was investi-
gated, was split into three companies, one of them being the
applicant. COFIRA SAC therefore came into existence after the
occurrence of the events which gave rise to the imposition of
penalties by the Commission.

The contested decision does not even state the grounds on
which the fine was imposed on the applicant alone, when all of
the companies which came into existence as a result of the
demerger of COFIRA SEPSO should have been required to
answer for the wrongful acts alleged.

Nor does the decision state the basis on which the total
amount of the fine was calculated, bearing in mind the fact
that fines are commensurate to turnover and that at the time of
the alleged events the applicant did not have any turnover as it
did not exist.

Furthermore, the Commission does not set out the elements of
fact which constituted the infringement. In fact, the whole deci-
sion is based on the assumption that the meetings between the
representatives of the companies amounted, subsequently and
in fact, to conduct contrary to Article 81 EC, and that such
practices had a significant impact on competition. However,
even if the facts relied on by the Commission were accepted,
the fifteen year limitation period has expired.

Action brought on 14 February 2006 — Commission v
Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias — Hellenic
Ventures S.A. — and five other defendants

(Case T-44/06)

(2006/C 86/75)

Language of the case: Greek

Article 1 of the contested decision states that certain undertak-
ings, including the applicant, infringed Community competition
rules during the period from 24 March 1982 to 26 June 2002
by participating in agreements and concerted practices in the
industrial plastic bag sector
in Belgium, Germany, Spain,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands. According to the defendant,
the purpose of those infringements was to fix prices, imple-

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and by S. Khatzigiannis, lawyer)

C 86/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

Defendant: Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias —
Hellenic Ventures S.A., Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis
Chronopoulos, Minas Patsouris, Nikolaos Poulakos and Robert
Ceurvorst

carried out an on-the-spot
inspection and had expressed
serious doubts as to whether the investments which the first
defendant company was supposed to have funded corre-
sponded to the tender specifications.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant company, jointly with the second to
the sixth defendants, to repay to the Commission the entire
amount of the advance received by the first defendant from
the Community, that is, ECU (now EURO) 70 000, together
with interest, calculated as laid down in the contract,
amounting, until 12 February 2006, to a sum of ECU (now
EURO) 103 423,54, that is, a total of ECU (now EURO)
171 939,18, as well as interest, again in accordance with
the terms of the contract, of 1.5 % per month, that is, an
amount of ECU (now EURO) 34.52 per day for the period
from 1 January 2006 until full discharge of the sum due by
the defendants;

— order the defendants jointly to pay the Commission's costs,

including the fees of the Commission's lawyers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community,
represented by the European
Commission, concluded with the first defendant company, in
which the other defendants are shareholders and members of
its Board or directors, a contract entitled ‘Seed Fund 601’, in
the context of the Pilot action to create and develop seed-
capital funds. (1)

Under that contract the Commission undertook to provide to
the first defendant financial support in the form of a repayable
advance of a maximum amount of ECU 350 000. That advance
was intended to cover a maximum limit of 50 % of the oper-
ating costs which the first defendant would incur in the context
of its activities as the Fund for start-up business capital
in
Greece. In that context, the Commission paid to the first defen-
dant the first annual advance of ECU 70 000.

By letter of 16 June 1994, the Commission informed the defen-
dant that it was rescinding the contract and asked it to repay,
with interest, the amount of ECU 70 000. By letter of 19
September 1994 the Commission explained that that decision
was taken as a result of the defendant's refusal to submit to a
detailed inspection by the auditors of the Commission's finan-
cial control service, in breach of Article 8(1) of the contract.
The Commission had decided that such an audit was indispen-
sable in view of the findings of a Commission official who had

Although the first defendant was repeatedly called upon to
repay the amount demanded, it failed to do so.

By its action the Commission seeks payment of the above
amount owed to it together with the interest due.

(1) OJ C 306 of 1.12.1988, p. 12.

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Reliance Indus-
tries v Council and Commission

(Case T-45/06)

(2006/C 86/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reliance Industries Ltd (Bombay, India) [represented
by: I. MacVay, S. Ahmed, Solicitors]

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the Commission's decisions, dated 1 December
2005, giving notice of an expiry review of the counter-
vailing measures applicable to imports of certain bottle
grade polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’) originating in, inter
alia, India, and of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-
dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET
originating in India,
the Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand and a partial interim review
of
the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of
certain PET originating in the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan (1);

Indonesia,