CELEX: C2000/135/41
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-48/00: Action brought on 1 March 2000 by British Steel Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

C 135/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicant alleges:                                                   — misuse of powers: the importation of EU/OCT sugar and
                                                                             mixtures from the OCTs arises directly from the OCT
— infringement of the rights of defence and the principle of                 decision, and is a result intended by the Council;
    open administration;
                                                                         — the declaration that Article 308d of Regulation
— infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Articles                 No 2454/93 is applicable is incompatible with Article 109
    5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2943/95;                                   of the OCT decision.
— infringement of the principle of proportionality;
— misuse of power.
                                                                         Action brought on 1 March 2000 by British Steel Limited
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European                                                   (Case T-48/00)
                           Communities
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/41)
                          (Case T-47/00)
                         (2000/C 135/40)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 2000 by British Steel
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Limited, represented by John Pheasant and Matthew Readings,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods                   Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
(Free Zone) NV, a company incorporated under the laws of
Aruba, established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by G. van
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.                  — annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 8 December
                                                                             1999, C(1999) 4154 final;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul Article 1 of this decision;
— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 of
    15 November 1999 introducing safeguard measures in                   — annul the fine imposed in respect of Article 1;
    respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures
    of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30                — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in respect of
    and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and                 Article 1;
    territories (OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11);
                                                                         — order the Commission to repay the fine or, in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     alternative, the amount by which it is reduced together
                                                                             with interest on the whole or, as the case may be, such
                                                                             amount by which it is reduced from the date of payment by
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                         British Steel to the date of repayment by the Commission;
— Regulation No 2423/1999 is incomprehensible; at any                    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs in these
    rate, it contains an insufficient statement of reasons: in               proceedings.
    support of the safeguard measures, the Commission cites
    difficulties in respect of which no details are given;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— manifest errors with regard to the facts;
— the fixing of a minimum price for imports of EU/OCT                    In the contested decision the Commission held that several
    sugar from the OCTs constitutes an infringement of Article           producers of seamless steel tubes infringed Article 81 (1) EC
    109(1) and (2) of the OCT decision;                                  and imposed a fine, inter alia, on the applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/23
The applicant seeks the annulment, in whole or in part, of this         Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Coe Clerici Logistics
decision in particular on the following grounds:                             SpA v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                 (Case T-52/00)
— As regards Article 2 of the decision, the supply contracts
    concluded by British Steel with Vallourec, Dalmine and
    MRW were not the result of an unlawful agreement or                                         (2000/C 135/42)
    collusion contrary to Article 81(1) and can be explained
    by the relevant commercial context in which they were
    concluded.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— As regards Article 1, there is insufficient evidence to               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 9 March
    uphold a finding of infringement against British Steel from         2000 by Coe Clerici Logistics SpA, represented by Giuseppe
    (and including) 1991.                                               Michele Giacomini and Elisabetta Minozzi, of the Genoa Bar.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
— In any event, given the relevant commercial context, the
    gravity and extent of any participation by British Steel in
    the infringement would have been only minor such that a             — Annul the letter of 20 December 1999, reference D17482,
    significantly reduced fine would have been appropriate. If               of the European Commission, Competition DG;
    the infringement is upheld, the fine imposed in respect of
    it should therefore be significantly reduced.
                                                                        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
— The Commission has based the duration of the Article 1
    infringement on an important factual error. The quota               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    arrangement implemented by the Japanese producers was
    authorised by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade
    and Industry until 1991, and not 1990 as stated in                  The applicant in this case takes exception to the defendant’s
    the decision. Accordingly, by its own reasoning, the                rejection of its complaint concerning the fact that on 30 March
    Commission should not have made a finding of infringe-              1999 the Port Authority of the Port of Ancona and Ancona
    ment before 1991. If the infringement is upheld, the fine           Merei S.C.p.A. prevented it from unloading coal, using its own
    imposed in respect of it should be reduced to reflect a             facilities, at quay No 25 in the port. That quay was the only
    shorter duration.                                                   one which the applicant could use since it was the only one
                                                                        equipped with a crane capable of unloading the goods. That
                                                                        refusal, in its view, constitutes an infringement of Article 86
                                                                        EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC.
— The Commission failed to satisfy the legal requirement to
    indicate in the Statement of Objections the essential factors
    defined in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17, and thereby              In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
    infringed British Steel’s rights of defence. The fine should        rights of the defence and of the principle of legal certainty, as
    therefore be annulled.                                              regards that part of the letter relating to the applicability of
                                                                        Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 December
                                                                        1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under
                                                                        Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (1). It is alleged in that
— The Commission entirely failed to take into account British           connection, in particular, that Ancona Merci, the concession-
    Steel’s co-operation with the Commission, and thereby               aire for the quay at which it was sought to undertake unloading
    infringed British Steel’s legitimate expectations and also          operations, is an undertaking with exclusive rights which
    the principle of equal treatment. The fine should therefore         abused its dominant position in deciding whether or not a
    be reduced.                                                         third party should be allowed, using its own resources, to
                                                                        unload goods at the quay and it is the applicant’s sole or main
                                                                        competitor in the market for that activity.
                                                                        Also, the contested letter constitutes a final decision to shelve
                                                                        a complaint within the meaning of Council Regulation No 17,
                                                                        adopted in breach of the procedure laid down in Articles 6, 7
                                                                        and 8 of Regulation No 2842/98.