Case T-405/06: Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Arcelor and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), exchange of information, fine, fixing of prices, iron and steel product, restriction on competition

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/37

Appeal brought on 22 December 2006 by the European
Training Foundation against the judgment of
the Civil
Service Tribunal delivered on 26 October 2006 in Case
F-1/05, Landgren v European Training Foundation

the public interest, in that it makes an erroneous assessment of
the material facts of which Mrs Landgren was informed and
which constitute the reasons for the decision to dismiss.

(Case T-404/06 P)

(2007/C 42/64)

Language of the case: French

(1) The Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European
Communities were laid down by Article 3 of Regulation (EEC,
Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968
laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (OJ,
English Special Edition, 1968 (I), p. 30).

Parties

Appellant: European Training Foundation (Turin,
sented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Italy)

(repre-

Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Arcelor and
Others v Commission

Other party to the proceedings: Pia Landgren

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Declare this appeal admissible and well-founded;

— As a result, annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
of 26 October 2006 in Case F-1/05 Landgren v European
Training Foundation, which is the subject of this appeal, and
thereby recognise the lawfulness of the decision of 25 June
2004 to dismiss the respondent and, accordingly, the lack of
any legal basis for compensation;

— Order the respondent to pay the costs, including the costs

of proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

(Case T-405/06)

(2007/C 42/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Arcelor Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg), Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (Esch-sur-Alzette,
Grand-Duchy of
International
(Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg)
(represented by:
A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

and Arcelor

Luxembourg)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

By judgment of 26 October 2006, annulment of which is
sought in this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the
decision of the European Training Foundation of 25 June 2004
terminating the
contract of Mrs Landgren as
a temporary agent and asked the parties to agree on the mone-
tary compensation required by the unlawfulness of the decision.

indefinite

In support of its claim for annulment of that judgment, the
Foundation raises two pleas, the first alleging disregard of the
extent of the obligation to state reasons. The appellant submits
that there is no legal basis requiring a defendant to state reasons
for a decision dismissing a temporary agent and that, by finding
to the contrary, the judgment under appeal breaches Article 47
of the Conditions of Employment (1) and the case-law applying
that provision. Moreover, the appellant submits that the judg-
ment under appeal erroneously relies on agreements and
conventions which are not applicable to relations between the
institutions and their staff. It also submits that the judgment
under appeal contains a contradiction between the formal
requirement of a statement of reasons and the lawfulness of the
knowledge the person concerned has of the reasons for the deci-
sion to terminate.

By its second plea the appellant submits that the judgment
law relating, first, to the
under appeal contains an error of
distortion of the facts and, second, to failure to have regard to

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission's decision of 8 November 2006 in
Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams — C(2006) 5342
final;

— at the very least, annul Article 2 of the decision imposing
on the applicants a financial penalty or reduce that penalty
drastically;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicants seeks the annulment of Commis-
sion Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating
to a proceeding under Article 65 ECSC (Case COMP/F/38.907
— Steel beams), concerning agreements and concerted practices
engaged in by European producers of beams and relating to
price-fixing, allocation of quotas and information exchange on
the market for beams in the Community. In the alternative, they
seek the annulment of or a substantial reduction in the fine
imposed on them by the contested decision.

C 42/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

The applicants rely on several pleas in law in support of their
action.

The first plea alleges infringement of Article 97 ECSC and
misuse of powers in so far as the contested decision applies
Article 65 ECSC after expiry of that treaty pursuant to Article
97 thereof.

— order the Commission (DG ENV) to pay the applicant's legal
and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with
this application, even if the current application is rejected;

— order the Commission (DG ENV) to pay the applicant's
damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in
question for an amount of EUR 86 300.

Second, the applicants allege infringement of Regulation No 1/
2003 (1) and a misuse of powers in so far as the Commission
bases its competence to adopt an ECSC decision on a regulation
which confers on it powers only pursuant to the implementa-
tion of Articles 81 and 82 EC.

The third plea alleges breach of the rule of law and the rights of
the defence in so far as the decision holds three affiliated
companies responsible for a practice in which only one partici-
pated.

the applicants

claim that, by adopting the
Furthermore,
contested decision, the Commission has infringed rules of law
relating to limitation.

Finally, the applicants claim that the contested decision infringed
their rights of defence in so far as it was adopted more than
fifteen years after the facts, on the basis of a theory for attri-
buting responsibility which, according to the applicants, was set
out for the first time by the Commission in its statement of
objections of March 2006 and therefore after an excessive
period of time.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Evropaïki Dyna-
miki v Commission

(Case T-406/06)

(2007/C 42/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
(represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call
for an open tender for the provision of services to support
Registries Systems established under Directive 2003/87 (1) with
(OJ 2006/S 102-
technical maintenance and user support
108793). The applicant contests the decision to reject its bid
and to award the contract to another bidder.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
defendant committed several errors of assessment and violated
the principles of equal treatment and transparency. Furthermore,
the applicant claims that the defendant did not state reasons for
its decision by not informing the applicant of the merits of the
successful tender compared to the applicant's tender.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Zhejiang Aokang
Shoes v Council

(Case T-407/06)

(2007/C 42/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd (Oubei, China)
(represented by:
I. MacVay, solicitor, R. Thompson, QC, and
K. Beal, barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision (DG ENV) to reject the
applicant's bid and to award the contract to the successful
contractor;

— The contested regulation be annulled in so far as it applies

to the applicant;

— the defendant meet the applicant's costs of these proceed-

ings.