Case T-368/08: Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Atlantean v Commission
Date: 2008-08-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Community fisheries, European Commission, Ireland, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping measure, dumping, industrial restructuring, steel

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/43

the present application,

By means of
the applicant seeks,
pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment of the Commission's
decision of 19 June 2008, granting partial access to its request
and refusing to allow access to one of the documents for which
the applicant applied under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of
the European Parliament and of the Council.

The applicant claims that the Commission committed an error
of law by applying Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001 to a purely intra-EU relationship. Moreover,
the applicant submits that the Commission committed a mani-
fest error of law in considering that the content of Mr Schrö-
der's letter was confidential to such an extent that its disclosure
would jeopardise the economic policy of Germany and other
EU Member States. Further, the applicant contends that the
Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in consid-
ering that the disclosure of the letter would compromise the
decision-making process and, finally, by not considering public
interest as overriding the confidential nature of
is decision-
making process.

(1) Case C-64/05 P Kingdom of Sweden v Commission [2007] ECR 11389.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
p. 7).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145,
p. 43).

Action brought on 2 September 2008 — Federcoopesca
and Others v Commission

(Case T-366/08)

(2008/C 301/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Federazione Nazionale delle Cooperative della Pesca
(Federcoopesca) (Rome, Italy); Pappalardo (Cetara, Italy); Pesca-
tori La Tonnara (Cetara, Italy); Fedemar (Cetara, Italy); I Ciclopi
di Tudisco Matteo (Catania, Italy); Testa (Catania, Italy); Pescatori
San Pietro Apostolo, Camplone (Pescara,
Italy), and Pesca
(Pescara, Italy) (represented by: P. Cavatola, V. Cannizzaro and G.
Micucci, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June
2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse

seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of
longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-305/08 Italian Republic v Commission
and Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore snc v
Commission.

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Atlantean v
Commission

(Case T-368/08)

(2008/C 301/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Atlantean Ltd (Killybegs,
(represented by:
M. Fraser, D. Hennessy, Solicitors, G. Hogan SC, E. Regan, and
C. Toland, Barristers)

Ireland)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2008) 3236 of 26 June
2008 addressed to Ireland responding to the request by
Ireland concerning the Atlantean;

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for
partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3236 final
of 26 June 2008 which provided for the rejection of the request
the applicant's vessel Atlantean to
by Ireland in respect of
increase capacity under
the fourth multi-annual guidance
programme (MAGP IV) applicable for the reasons of improve-
ments in safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and
working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length
overall. The first Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April
2003 (1) rejecting the request by Ireland was annulled by the
Court's judgment of 13 June 2006 in so far as it applied to the
applicant's vessel Atlantean (2).

C 301/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

its contentions that

The applicant states in support of
the
contested decision was not made on the basis of criteria set out
in Council Decision 97/413/EC (3), which it considers to be the
appropriate legal base, but on application of Article 11(5) of
Council Regulation 2371/2002/EC (4). The applicant therefore
submits that the Commission not only lacked the competence
to make the decision but it also infringed the principles of non-
retroactivity,
legitimate expecta-
tions, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treat-
ment and the principle of proportionality.
It states that the
Commission breached its obligation to state reasons laid down
in Article 253 EC as well as the applicant's right to be heard
and its rights to property. The applicant further claims that the
Commission misused its powers, acted mala fides and made inex-
cusable and manifest error in its decision. It also submits that
the Commission acted in excess in the bounds of its discretion.

legal certainty, protection of

the applicant claims that

Furthermore,
in
adopting the contested decision, sought to defeat a related claim
in Case T-125/08 (5),
for damages made by the applicant
pending before the Court, and was therefore not bona fide.

the Commission,

(1) OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48.
(2) Case T-192/03, Atlantean Ltd. v Commission [2006] ECR II-42.
(3) Council Decision of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and
detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for
the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view
to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and
their exploitation, OJ L 175, p. 27.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on
the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, p. 59.

(5) Case T-125/08, Atlantean Ltd. v Commission, OJ C 116, p. 28.

Action brought on 4 September 2008 — EWRIA and
Others v Commission

(Case T-369/08)

(2008/C 301/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Wire Rope Importers Association (EWRIA)
(Hemer, Germany); Câbleries Namuroises SA (Namur, Belgium);
Ropenhagen A/S (Vallensbæk Strand, Danemark); Eisen- und
Stahlhandelsgesellschaft mbH (Kaarst, Germany); Heko Indus-
trieerzeugnisse (Hemer, Germany); Interkabel Internationale Seil-

und Kabel-Handels GmbH (Solms, Germany);
Colomar SA (Valencia, Spain); Denwire Ltd.
Kingdom) (represented by: T. Lieber, lawyer)

Jose Casañ
(Dudley, United

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare the action admissible;

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 4 July 2008, in
which the Commission rejects applicants' request
for a
partial interim review of the antidumping measures on steel
wire ropes (SWR) to adjust the scope of the measures and
exclude general purpose ropes (GPR)
from the product
scope of the measures;

— Require the Commission to initiate a partial interim review
of the antidumping measures imposed on imports of SWR
to adjust the scope of the measures and exclude GPR from
the scope of the measures;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicants seek annulment of
the Commission decision of 4 July 2008 rejecting the appli-
cants' request for partial interim review of the antidumping duty
imposed on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in
the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa, Ukraine and
the Russian Federation (1)
in view of exclusion of general
purpose ropes (GPR) from the product scope of the measure.
The Commission refused to initiate the interim measure review
on the grounds of lack of evidence that the two product types
under the measures, steel wire ropes and general purpose ropes,
do not share the same basic physical, technical and chemical
characteristics.

The applicants put forward three pleas in law in support of
their claims.

First, the applicants claim that the failure of the Community
institutions to initiate a partial
interim review constitutes a
breach of Article 11(3) and Article 21 of the basic regulation (2).
They state that the change of circumstances justifying an interim
review may also refer
the product
concerned.

to the definition of

Second, the applicants submit that the failure of the Community
institutions to initiate a partial
interim review constitutes a
breach of the applicants' legitimate expectations. They claim that
the Commission itself had encouraged the applicants upon
termination of expiry review concerning steel wire ropes origin-
ating in the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa and
Ukraine to file a request for partial interim review to adjust the
scope of the measures in question.