CELEX: C2003/264/63
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-300/03: Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India Limited against the Council of the European Union

1.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 264/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di. s.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                                     (Case T-299/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                     (2003/C 264/62)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                           European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di.
                                                                            s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —       annul the contested refusal.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione Cuoio                       —       order the Commission to pay the costs.
e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l. against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                          (Case T-298/03)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2003/C 264/61)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                            advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione
Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                                 Limited against the Council of the European Union
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                                     (Case T-300/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                     (2003/C 264/63)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                                                                            Communities on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                            Limited, New Delhi (India), represented by P. Bently, QC,
                                                                            K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, R. MacLean and J. Branto, Solici-
                                                                            tors, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/36               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     In determining the injury caused by another known
                                                                                injurious factor, namely imports from Taiwan were
                                                                                not attributed to the subsidised imports, the Council
—     annul the Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 of 2 June,                     committed a manifest error of assessment in the appli-
      insofar as it applies to the Applicant; and                               cation of Articles 8(6) and (7) of the Basic Anti-Cubsidy
                                                                                Regulation.
—     order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
      the procedure.                                                      —     In determining that injury caused by another known
                                                                                injurious factor, namely the alleged anti-competitive
                                                                                discrimantory pricing by the Community supplier of
                                                                                technology, was not attributed to the subsidied imports,
                                                                                the Council did not follow the correct procedures for the
                                                                                application of Articles 8(6) and (7) of the Basic anti-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Subsidy Regulation.
The applicant in the present case is a company formed under               (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing
the laws of India manufacturing recordable compact disks                      a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact
(CD-Rs), rewritable compacts disks (CD-RWs) and read only                     disks originating in India (OJ L 138 of 5.6.2003, p. 1).
memory compact disks (CD-ROMs). In addition, it manufac-
tures other forms of storage media, and notably micro-
diskettes, in an export processing zone (EPZ).
Following a complaint lodged by the Community producers
of CD-Rs, grouped in Association CECMA, pursuant to which
the Commission announced the initiation of parallel anti-
dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings against imports into
the European Community of CD-Rs originating in India. The                 Action brought on 4 September 2003 by PTV Planung
anti-dumping proceedings having been terminated without the               Transport Verkehr AG against the Office for Harmonis-
adoption of measures, the present procedure concerns only                 ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
the countervailing proceedings against CD-Rs that culminated                                              (OHIM)
in the contested Regulation, imposing countervailing duties of
7,3 % on imports of recordable compact disks originating in
India. (1).                                                                                          (Case T-302/03)
                                                                                                     (2003/C 264/64)
In support of its application the applicant submits that:
—     In determining 4,2 years as the period over which the                                   (Language of the case: German)
      alleged subsidy should be allocated, the Council made a
      manifest error of assessment in the determination of
      the normal depreciation of the applicant’s plant and
      machinery, and infringed Articles 5, 7(3) and 11(1) of the
      Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and Article 253 EC.                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     The contested Regulation should be invalid because                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      during the administrative procedure, an incomprehen-                4 September 2003 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG,
      sible explanation of the calculation of the 4.2 years was           Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer.
      provided to the applicant in violation of the rights of
      defence, or, alternatively, in violation of Article 253.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     In analysing the consequent impact of imports from India
      into the Community industry and also the question as to             —     annul the decision of 1 July 2003 of the Second Board of
      whether such imports were causing injury to this industry                 Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the Council failed to carry out an objective examination                  Market (Case R 1046/2001-2);
      of all the relevant evidence as required by Articles 8(2)
      and (6) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and/or
      committed a series of manifests errors of assessment.               —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.