CELEX: C2002/109/50
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-57/02 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compañía Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-48/98 between Compañía Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Communities

4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/29
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                 was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
hof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case               Communities on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a Española
  of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden                       para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox), established in
                                                                        Madrid, Spain, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
                         (Case C-56/02)                                 Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers.
                        (2002/C 109/49)
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the contested judgment of the Court of First
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                          Instance of 13 December 2001 in case T-48/98; as well
(Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2002, received at the                   as
Court Registry on 22 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                                                                        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 21 January 1998
(Principal Customs Office) Weiden on the following question:
                                                                              fining the Appellant or at the very least substantially
                                                                              reduce the amount of the fine, or alternatively refer the
Is Article 187, second paragraph, of Council Regulation                       case back to the Court of First Instance;
(EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (OJ 1992
L 302, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where                   —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensating products that are declared as returned goods are
released for free circulation, the factual particulars required to
calculate the import duties legally owed on those compensating
products must also be declared and proved, or is it for the
endorsing customs office, so far as possible, to ascertain those        Pleas in law and main arguments
factual particulars from the supervising office using an INF 1
sheet, pursuant to the procedure established in Article 613 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council                The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community                  Instance is flawed for the following reasons:
Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), in the version in force
until 30 June 2001?
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance based its findings with regard
                                                                              to Acerinox’s participation in the alleged cartel in Spain
(1) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.                                             on a manifestly erroneous construction of the Appellant’s
(2) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.                                             pleadings and therefore failed to properly motivate its
                                                                              judgment on this point;
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance failed to adequately motivate
                                                                              its rejection of the Appellant’s argument that its
                                                                              implementation of the alloy surcharge outside Spain,
                                                                              which did not follow the pattern allegedly agreed in
Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a                              December 1993, reflected mere parallelism of conduct;
Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     —     the Court of First Instance has applied an erroneous legal
the European Communities in case T-48/98 between                              test in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement;
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A.
(Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                    —     even if an infringement could be said to continue for as
                                                                              long as its consequences are felt (rather than for as
                                                                              long as some concertation continues to exist between
                        (Case C-57/02 P)
                                                                              undertakings), the Court of First Instance failed to motiv-
                                                                              ate its rejection as irrelevant of the Appellant’s argument
                        (2002/C 109/50)                                       that, in July 1994, the price of nickel reached its original
                                                                              level;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December                 —     the Court of First Instance failed to properly motivate its
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance                      rejection of the Appellant’s argument concerning the
of the European Communities in case T-48/98 (1) between                       disproportionate level of its fine when its position on the
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Aceri-              market is compared to that of other addressees of the
nox) and the Commission of the European Communities,                          decision;
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
—     in refusing to grant the Appellant the same reduction of        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission
      fine as that granted to other participants because the          of the European Communities against the United
      Appellant denied its participation in an infringement,                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      the Court of First Instance has violated fundamental
      principles of law (right of defence) recognised by the
      Court of Justice in its case-law.                                                        (Case C-62/02)
                                                                                              (2002/C 109/52)
(1) OJ C 137, 02.05.98, p. 20.
                                                                      An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities on 26 February 2002 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                      Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission                  Luxembourg.
   of European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                      The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-58/02)
                                                                      —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 109/51)                                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                            the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
                                                                            availability of consumer information on fuel economy
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Febru-               passenger cars (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
ary 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Michael Shotter,                 of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              its obligations under Article 12(1) and 12(2) of this
the office of Luis Escobar, Wagner Centre, C 254.                           Directive;
                                                                      —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection
      of services based on, or consisting of, conditional             Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
      access (1), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its       the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
      obligations under that directive;                               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
                                                                      period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
                                                                      expired on 18 January 2001 without the United Kingdom
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      having informed the Commission of the provisions adopted to
                                                                      comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the
                                                                      Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      Since the Commission is in possession of no other information
                                                                      enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put          the necessary provision, it is compelled to assume that the
forward in Case C-44/02 (2); the time-limit for transposition         United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
expired on 28 May 2000.                                               Directive.
(1) OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54.
(2) OJ C 97, 20.4.2002, p. 4.                                         (1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.