CELEX: C2000/149/68
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-50/00: Action brought on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

27.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/35
The essence of the applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments            The contested regulation, it is claimed, entirely upset the
are similar to those in Cases T-186/97 (1), T-187/97, T-191/97,           existing situation. Its effect is to exclude from the scope of
T-192/97, T-210/97 and T-211/97.                                          code 2001 90 50 mushrooms preserved in vinegar which still
                                                                          have a salt content in excess of 2,5 % even if such salt is added
                                                                          only for the purposes of preparation and not preservation.
(1) OJ 1997 C 318, p. 17.                                                 Those products will henceforth be subjected to the severest
                                                                          tariff conditions laid down for code 2003 10 of the combined
                                                                          nomenclature.
                                                                          In support, the applicant claims:
                                                                          — The Commission lacks competence by virtue of Article 26
                                                                               of the EC Treaty;
Action brought on 8 March 2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto                  — Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, the legal basis of the
Masiello & Figli v Commission of the European Communi-                         contested regulation, has been infringed and misapplied,
                               ties                                            in that the powers of the Commission provided for therein,
                                                                               being of an executive nature, may not be used in order to
                                                                               amend provisions of a substantive nature which define the
                          (Case T-49/00)                                       tariff conditions for goods. Secondly, in this case the
                                                                               requirements for amending the pre-existing provisions are
                                                                               not satisfied;
                         (2000/C 149/67)
                                                                          — The principle of equal treatment has been infringed in that
                                                                               the new regulation is extremely onerous only for the
                                                                               producers and importers of mushrooms which are pre-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             served in vinegar but are prepared using a high salt content.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also considers that the contested regulation
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8 March            contains an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons
2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto Masiello & Figli, represented              and infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle
by Andrea Guarino and Alain Lorang, of the Rome and                       of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Luxembourg Bars respectively.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             (1) OJ L 321 of 14.12.1999, p. 3.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 170 of 28.6.1997, p. 13.
— Annul Commission Regulation No 2626/99;
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA against
                                                                                 the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant in this case, an importer of preserved vegetables
for human consumption, takes exception to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2626/99 amending Annex I to Council                                              (Case T-50/00)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1). One of
the main products in which it deals is cooked mushrooms of                                         (2000/C 149/68)
the ‘agaricus’ variety preserved in vinegar. Salt is then added to
them, in a concentration varying between 15 and 25 %.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
Under the combined nomenclature established by Regulation
No 2685/87, mushrooms of the ‘agaricus’ variety could be                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
classified under three headings. To resolve this problem,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997                     European Communities on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA,
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined            represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
nomenclature was adopted (2).                                             the Rome and Venice Bars.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacurta
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision of
     8 December 1998 in Case IV/E-1/35.860-B — seamless
     steel tubes                                                                                   (Case T-51/00)
— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the                                     (2000/C 149/69)
     applicant;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacur-
The applicant has been accused of participation in an agree-            ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, Avocat,
ment involving European and Japanese producers of seamless              Luxembourg.
steel tubes in connection with the so-called Europe-Japan Club,
an agreement providing, inter alia, for protection of national
markets in standard edged and ‘linepipe project’ OCTG (Oil
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Country Tubular Goods) tubes. The applicant is further
accused, as part of the same infringement, of participating in a
further agreement between European producers only, con-                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant’s
sisting in the sharing out of the supply of smooth OCTG tubes                complaint concerning his request for communication
to British Steel.                                                            of the document embodying the appointing authority’s
                                                                             decision appointing him with effect from 1 September
                                                                             1996 to the Planning, contracts and general services unit
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following
                                                                             of the Office for Official Publications of the European
defects:
                                                                             Communities in Luxembourg;
— Procedural infringement during the administrative phase,
     concerning, inter alia, the inadmissibility of certain ques-       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Office
     tions put to the applicant by the Commission during its                 for Official Publications of the European Communities of
     investigation, the handling of confidentiality and the                  15 May 1998 assigning the applicant to the Coedition and
     failure of certain documents annexed to the Statement of                copyright unit in Luxembourg on the grounds that it is
     Objections to correspond with the documents used in the                 based on an act which either does not exist or is not in
     decision.                                                               conformity with the Staff Regulations;
— Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and of the                   — order the Commission of the European Communities to
     legitimate expectations of the applicant in relation to the             pay all costs and fees incurred in the proceedings;
     inclusion in the contested decision of descriptions of fact
     not contained in the objections sent to the undertakings.
                                                                        — note that the applicant reserves his rights in respect of all
— Failure to act, contradictoriness in reasoning, and infringe-              other rights, entitlements, pleadings and actions, including
     ment of Article 81 of the Treaty in relation to the market              those relating to damages.
     analysis and the commercial conduct of Dalmine, the
     alleged unlawfulness of the supply contracts for the United
     Kingdom and the restrictive nature of the agreement in the
     context of the Europe-Japan Club.                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Specifically concerning the supply contracts for the United
                                                                        The applicant contests the Commission’s decision rejecting the
Kingdom, the applicant states that its contract with British
                                                                        request which he submitted on 20 July 1999 for communi-
Steel, which was not the result of an agreement between
                                                                        cation of the official decision reassigning him with effect from
European producers, largely concerns products which do not
                                                                        1 September 1996 to the Official Publications Office in
fall within the relevant market as defined by the Commission.
                                                                        Luxembourg.
Moreover, the applicant did not participate in any horizontal
agreement with other European producers for the sharing out
of supply in the United Kingdom.
                                                                        In support of his action he maintains that that decision:
                                                                        — infringes Articles 2, 3 and 25 of the Staff Regulations;