Case T-151/06: Action brought on  9 June 2006  — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, metallurgical industry, semi-metal

C 178/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CASTEL-
LANI’ for goods in class 33 (alcoholic beverages except beer,
liqueur, sparkling wine and Champagne) — application No 2
387 272

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
MARKANT Handels- und Service GmbH

Mark or sign cited: The national word marks ‘CASTELLUM’ for
goods in class 33 (wines, with the exception of sparkling wine)
and ‘CASTELLUCA’ for goods in class 33 (wines)

— Declare the action admissible;

— declare the contested decision invalid to the extent the
Commission did not treat sales via ASMP consistently with
the treatment of those sales in the initial anti-dumping
investigation of silicon from Russia, and order the European
Commission to recalculate the dumping margin (and thus
the amount to be refunded) accordingly;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
in its entirety

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition
Division's decision and rejection of the application

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the conflicting marks are different and the appli-
cant's mark can not cause confusion for German consumers.

Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Aluminium Silicon Mill
Products v Commission

(Case T-151/06)

(2006/C 178/66)

Language of the case: English

Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 (1) imposed an anti-
dumping duty on imports of silicon to the Community from
two Russian exporting producers, related to the applicant: Sual-
Kremny-Urals LLC and ZAO Kremny. Because the applicant
believed that the dumping margin on the basis of which anti-
dumping duties were paid had been eliminated, it lodged three
requests for reimbursement of the duties with regard to subse-
quent imports.

In the contested decision, the requests were partially granted.
The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision to the extent
it reflects adjustment made without justification, with the result
that the calculated dumping margin is more than de minimis,
and does not authorize the national customs authorities to
grant the full reimbursement requested of anti-dumping duties
paid by the applicant on imports of silicon originating in
Russia.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes, first, a
manifest error of assessment and a breach of Council Regu-
lation No 384/96 (2) (the Basic Regulation), in particular Article
11(9), as well as a violation of the principle of legal certainty.
According to the applicant, the Commission erred in finding
that there were changed circumstances requiring it to depart
from the methodology relied on in the original investigation in
relation to sales made via the applicant.

Parties

Applicant: Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH (Zug, Swit-
zerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Second, the applicant invokes a manifest error of assessment
and a breach of Article 253 EC with regard to the assessment
of the existence of a single economic entity as between the
applicant and the Russian factories and the adjustment for an
agent´s commission.

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/37

Third, the applicant invokes a breach of the Basic Regulation as
regards the deduction of an agent's commission, and in particu-
lar Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as last modified by
Regulation No 2238/2000 (3). According to the applicant,
Article 2(10)(i), as modified by Regulation No 1972/2002 (4), is
not applicable since the refund procedure at hand would
concern the continuation of the original procedure. In the alter-
native, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed
Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as modified by Regu-
lation No 1972/2002.

— annul the contested decision;

— order

the Commission to open a formal

investigation

procedure under Article 88(2) EC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the

applicant.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 of 22 December 2003
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively
the provisional duty imposed on imports of silicon originating
Russia (OJ L 339, p. 3).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ L 56, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 of 9 October 2000
amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against
dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 of 5 November 2002
amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on the protection against
dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community (OJ L 305, p. 1).

Action brought on 6 June 2006 — NDSHT Nya Destina-
tion Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission

(Case T-152/06)

(2006/C 178/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teater-
paket AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Merola and
L. Armati, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare the action admissible;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission not to
pursue its investigation of the applicant's complaint relating to
three kinds of subsidies to Stockholm Visitors Board AB (‘SVB’),
namely: the yearly appropriations from the City of Stockholm's
budget in favour of SVB, the reimbursement on a regular basis
of SVB's pre-tax losses by its parent company and the preferen-
tial access to public assets for the provision of services included
in the Stockholm Card. The Commission found that
the
measures did not constitute unlawful aid.

The applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision,
the Commission has infringed several provisions in the Treaty
and Regulation No 659/1999 (1).

The applicant invokes, first, that, by not opening the formal
investigation procedure,
the Commission infringed Article
88(3) EC as well as Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999.
According to the applicant, the Commission was aware of the
existence of aid and did not have sufficient elements to estab-
lish that all measures at stake qualified as existing aid.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied
Articles 87 and 86(2) EC insofar as it stated that the compensa-
tion for carrying out
information activities fell
within the rules on services of general economic interest.

the tourist

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied
Articles 87 and 88 EC, as well as Article 1(b) of Regulation No
659/1999, in stating that, if the compensation for tourist infor-
it constituted
mation activities was to be considered as aid,
existing aid and not unlawful aid, and in any case was compa-
tible with the common market.

Fourth, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in the
application of Article 87(1) and 88(3) EC in establishing that
SVB's commercial activities were carried out under market
conditions and were, therefore, not financed from state aid. The
applicant submits in particular that the Commission failed to
take a position in relation to the reimbursement of SVB's losses
by its parent company, wholly owned by the City Council.