Case T-53/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v Commission
Date: 2007-02-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), exchange of information, price agreement, restriction on competition, rubber industry, trade information

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/45

Action brought on 22 February 2007 — Agrar-Invest-
Tatschl v Commission

(Case T-51/07)

(2007/C 95/92)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH (St. Andrä im Lavanttal,
Ausria) (represented by O. Wenzlaff, lawyer)

In support of its claim, the applicant argues that the contested
decision is unlawful, because the conditions for the discounting
of the subsequent entry of the import duties in the accounts
under Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code of the Commu-
nities or for the remission of the subsequently entered import
duties under Article 239 of the Customs Code of the Commu-
nities are satisfied.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-

lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L
253, p. 1).

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v
Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of Commission Decision
C(2006) 5789 final (REC 05/05) of 4 December 2006;

of

accounts

— order the defendant to find that the subsequent entry into
to
the
import
EUR 110 937,60 in respect of the import of sugar origin-
ating in Croatia by the applicant from 26 June 2002, which
is the subject-matter of the request made by the Republic of
Austria of 10 June 2005, should be discounted;

amounting

duties

(Case T-53/07)

(2007/C 95/93)

Language of the case: English

— in the alternative to the second form of order sought, order
the defendant to find that the import duties amounting to
EUR 110 937,60 in respect of the import of sugar origin-
ating from Croatia by the applicant from 26 June 2002,
which is the subject-matter of
the request made by the
Republic of Austria of 10 June 2005, should be remitted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2006) 5789
final of 4 December 2006 finding, first, that, as regards a speci-
fied amount, the subsequent entry into the accounts of import
duties was not justified and, secondly, that, as regards a further
amount,
import
the subsequent entry into the accounts of
duties was justified and that the remission of those duties in a
particular case was not justified (request of the Republic of
Austria).

Parties

Applicant: Trade-Stomil Sp z o. o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented
by: F. Carlin, barrister, E. W. Batchelor, solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision,

in particular Articles 1 to 4

thereof, to the extent that it applies to Trade-Stomil; or

— annulment of Article 2 of the decision insofar as it pertains

to Trade-Stomil; or

In this decision directed at the Republic of Austria, the Commis-
sion came to the conclusion, applying Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 (1) (‘the Customs Code of the Communities’) and Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2), that the subsequent entry into the
import duties amounting to EUR 110 937,60
accounts of
those
should not be discounted and that
import duties was not justified.

the remission of

— modification of Article 2 of the decision as it pertains to
Trade-Stomil, so as to annul or substantially reduce the fine
imposed on Trade-Stomil therein; and, in any event,

— order that the Commission pay its own costs and Trade-

Stomil's costs in connection with these proceedings.

C 95/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

xiii) the Commission failed to establish or hear Trade-Stomil as

to the intentional or negligent nature of the infringement;

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C
(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/
38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene
Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant,
together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC
and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic
Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing
and exchanging
customers by non-aggression agreements
commercial
information relating to prices, competitors and
customers.

The applicant relies upon fourteen grounds in support of its
claims. According to the applicant:

i) the Commission infringed Article 81 EC, as it allegedly
failed to prove to the requisite standard that Trade-Stomil
participated in the cartel;

ii) the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons in
finding that the duration of Trade-Stomil's participation in
the cartel amounted to three months;

iii) the Commission is said to lack the jurisdiction which is
necessary to address a decision to Trade-Stomil under
Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 EEA agreement;

xiv) the Commission allegedly erred in calculating the fine.

Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2006 in
Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission

(Case T-56/07 P)

(2007/C 95/94)

Language of the case: French

iv) the Commission further infringed Article 81 EC finding
that Trade-Stomil was acting as a non-genuine agent of
Dwory;

Parties

v) the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons in
finding that Trade-Stomil was acting as a non-genuine
agent of Dwory;

vi) the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment
in setting the starting point of the fine based on Dwory
and Trade-Stomil's combined turnover;

vii) the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons by
fining Trade-Stomil on the basis of Trade-Stomil and
Dwory's sales turnover, rather than Trade-Stomil's turnover
alone;

viii) the Commission allegedly infringed the principle of
equality in calculating the starting point on Trade-Stomil,
as a mere agent with no control over prices or quantities,
in the same way as a supplier/producer;

ix) the Commission infringed the duty to follow self-imposed
rules by not taking into account Trade-Stomil's passive or
follow-my-leader participation in the cartel;

x) the Commission infringed the duty to follow self-imposed
rules by failing to reduce the fine for non-implementation;

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-
Etienne, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds
the first two pleas in law alleging illegality of the appoint-
ment procedure and breach of Article 29(1) and Article 31
the Staff Regulations and annuls the appointment of
of
another person to the post of Head of Unit ‘Biotechnology
and applied genomics’ and, consequently, the rejection of
the applicant's candidature for that post;

— itself give judgment

in the dispute, uphold the pleas
submitted by the defendant at first instance and, accordingly,
dismiss the application in Case F-122/05;

xi) the Commission decision breached the principle of propor-

tionality in setting the fine;

— in the alternative, refer the case beck to the Civil Service

Tribunal for a decision on the remaining pleas;

xii) the Commission infringed the rights of defence by failing
to hear Trade-Stomil as to the basis on which it proposed
to assume jurisdiction extra-territorially;

— order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the
proceedings and also to bear his own costs before the Civil
Service Tribunal.