CELEX: C2005/031/47
Language: en
Date: 2005-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-429/04: Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Trubowest Handel GmbH and Mr Viktor Makarov against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

5.2.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 31/24
            
         Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Trubowest Handel GmbH and Mr Viktor Makarov against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-429/04)
   (2005/C 31/47)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 October 2004 by Trubowest Handel GmbH, Cologne (Germany), and Mr Viktor Makarov, Cologne (Germany), represented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               order the European Community, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 288 of the EC Treaty, to make good the damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the definitive anti-dumping measures prescribed by the anti-dumping Regulation, by awarding the amounts of
            
         
               —
            
            
               EUR 118 058.46 to Trubowest by way of compensation for damages, together with default interest on this amount in the rate of 8 % annually;
            
         
               —
            
            
               EUR 397 916.91 (EUR 277 939.37 + 63 448.54 + 56 529. 00) to Mr Makarov by way of compensation for damages, together with default interest on this amount in the rate of 8 % annually;
            
         
               —
            
            
               EUR 128 000.00 to Trubowest loss of profit for the period between 2000 and 2004, together with default interest on this amount at the rate of 8 % annually; in the alternative a sum due to Trubowest by way of compensation for damage for loss of profit for the period between 2000 and 2004, to be assessed during the proceedings, following an interlocutory judgment of the Court, by agreement between the parties; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               EUR 150 000.00 by way of compensation to Mr Makarov for the moral prejudice that he suffered together with default interest in the rate of 8 % annually on this amount;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that all the costs occasioned by the applicants in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the Council and the Commission.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first applicant is an importer of seamless pipes and tubes in the European Community and the second applicant is its managing director. By their application they seek to be compensated for the damage they allegedly suffered by reason of the adoption of Regulation 2320/97 (1) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic.
   The applicants argue that in the context of proceedings under Article 81 EC, a fine was imposed on several community producers of seamless pipes and tubes (2). According to the applicants, it is very likely, if not certain, that the anti-competitive conduct of the seamless pipes and tubes producers affected the injury and causality analysis of the anti-dumping proceedings, given the overlap in the product scope, in the companies involved and in the periods of investigation of the competition and anti-dumping proceedings. Nevertheless, the applicants contend, the Commission entirely failed to take into account that anti-competitive conduct when determining the injury caused by the allegedly dumped imports, as required by Regulation 384/1996 (3).
   On the above basis the applicants invoke a breach of Regulation 384/1996 as well as of the obligation of good and sound administration, due care and diligence. They further argue that the Council and the Commission later recognised that the impact of the anti-competitive conduct has affected the anti-dumping investigation and, by Regulation 1322/2004 (4) considered it no longer appropriate to apply the measures imposed by Regulation 2320/1997.
   The applicants reason that had the Council and the Commission not violated the above rules and obligations, Regulation 2320/1997 might never have been adopted and the applicants might never have incurred the damage they incurred because of it. The applicants therefore seek compensation for that damage which, in the case of the first applicant takes the form of a restitution of duties it actually paid under Regulation 2320/1997 as well as compensation for loss of profit. The second applicant requests compensation for the amounts he paid under Regulation 2320/1997, loss of profit due to non-payment of his director's salary, legal costs allegedly incurred as well as moral prejudice damage.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.
   
      (2)  2003/382/EC, Commission Decision of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (notified under document number C(1999) 4154), OJ L 140, 6.6.2003, p. 1.
   
      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1
   
   
      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 of 16 July 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Russia and Romania OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 10