Case T-369/08: Action brought on 4 September 2008 — EWRIA and Others v Commission
Date: 2008-09-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, Denmark, European Commission, Germany, Spain, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping measure, approximation of laws, foreign market, steel

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.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/45

Finally, the applicants claim that by failing to initiate an interim
review the Community institutions committed a manifest error
of assessment and breached Article 1(4) of the basic regulation
when they based their findings on too broad scope of products
which led them to compare unlike products and thus arrive at
invalid findings.

Hungarian stranded costs), in so far as it identifies the applicant
as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompa-
tible with the common market, and in so far as the decision
including
orders Hungary to recover
interest, from the applicant.

the alleged State aid,

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 of 12 August 1999 as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 of 8 November
2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel
ropes and cables originating in the People's Republic of China, India,
South Africa and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to
Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 299, p. 1)
and Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 of 2 August 2001 as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October
2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or
steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and
repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or
steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey (OJ 2007
L 285, p. 1).

(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 1996 L 56, p. 1).

Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Csepeli
Áramtermelő v Commission

(Case T-370/08)

(2008/C 301/76)

Language of the case: English

The applicant claims that the Commission failed to evidence
and appropriately justify its conclusion that the power purchase
agreement (‘PPA’) concluded between the applicant — owner of
a power generation facility in Hungary ultimately acquired by
Atel AG — and the Hungarian state-owned electricity whole-
saler, Magyar Villamos Muvek Rt. (‘MVM’), constitutes incompa-
tible State aid. In support of its claims, the applicant raises the
following pleas in law:

In its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission
infringed Article 253 EC and Article 87(1) EC by failing to state
reasons and by making a manifest error of assessment
in
finding that the applicant's PPA conferred an economic advan-
tage to the applicant.

In its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission
committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that
the applicant's PPA distorts competition.

In its third plea, the applicant contends that the Commission
infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment,
in that the recovery obligation is unjustified in the specific
circumstances of the case on the basis of general principles of
Community law.
the
Commission made a manifest error of assessment regarding the
methodology that it applied in order to calculate the amounts
to be recovered.

the applicant claims that

In addition,

Parties

Applicant: Csepeli Áramtermelő kft (Budapest, Hungary) (repre-
sented by: Á. Máttyus, K. Ferenczi, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke,
T. Franchoo, and D. Fessenko, lawyers)

Appeal brought on 8 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against
the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June
2008 in Case F-5/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision in so far as it identifies Csepel as a bene-
ficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible
with the common market, and in so far as the decision
orders Hungary to recover this alleged State aid, including
interest, from Csepel; and

— To order the Commission to pay the costs.

Parties

(Case T-371/08 P)

(2008/C 301/77)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F.
Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

The applicant requests the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2008) 2223 final, of 4 June 2008 (Case C-41/2005 —

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European
Communities