CELEX: C1997/074/49
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 January 1997 by Industrie des Poudres Sphériques (IPS) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-5/97)

No C 74/24            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
 Action brought on 13 January 1997 by Industrie des                  as the defendant took the view that Pechiney had
 Poudres Spheriques (IPS ) against the Commission of                 attempted to improve the quality of its calcium with a
                   the European Communities                          view to supplying the applicant. The applicant stresses the
                         ( Case T-5/97 )                             fact that the statements made on several occasions by
                                                                     Pechiney, in numerous exchanges of correspondence with
                           ( 97/C 74/49 )                            the applicant, concerning the production of the calcium
                                                                     which it was awaiting, were never followed by the
                 (Language of the case: French)                      slightest explanation as to the reasons why that calcium
                                                                     was never ready. Moreover, according to the applicant,
 An action against the Commission of the European                    Pechiney has failed to provide any details whatever
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   concerning the arrangements which it was allegedly
 Instance of the European Communities on 13 January                  making in order to improve the quality of its calcium.
 1997 by Industrie des Poudres Spheriques ( IPS ), having its        Consequently, the Commission merely undertook a
 seat at Annemasse ( France ), represented by Chantal                superficial appraisal of the various items of
 Momege, of the Paris Bar, with an adress for service in             correspondence sent by Pechiney to the applicant, without
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand­                 embarking on any serious assessment of the documents in
 Rue .                                                               the case .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                         In addition to pleading the erroneous appraisal concerning
                                                                     the existence of abusive practices, the applicant claims
— annul the Commission 's decision of 7 November 1996                that the Commission's analysis is based on a number of
     rejecting its complaint in Case IV/35151/E-1 ,                  errors of assessment, in that the defendant:
— order the Council to pay all the costs.                           — considers that the applicant's process calls for
                                                                          particular specifications which differ from those of
                                                                          other calcium metal processors,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    — states that no producer has specified the oxygen
The applicant, a small company specializing in the                       content of its calcium,
production of granulated radioactive metals, needs, in
order to meet its production requirements, to obtain                — disregarded the fact that the difficulty in arriving at a
supplies of calcium metal. Since commencing production                   reliable method of analysing the calcium is attributable
in 1982, it has approached Pechiney, the sole Community                  to unwillingness on the part of Pechiney, and
producer, with a view to procuring from the latter all the
supplies of the product which it requires. However, its
                                                                    — took the view that the applicant could obtain
endeavours have been wholly fruitless. The applicant
                                                                         deliveries from western suppliers or from other third
states, by way of explanation for Pechiney's conduct, that               countries .
the latter has developed a process in competition with that
of the applicant and that the two companies have become
competitors as regards the derivative product known as
split calcium. According to the applicant, one of the
delaying tactics employed by Pechiney has been to use the
anti-dumping instrument solely in order to exclude
supplies from outside the Community.                                Action brought on 15 January 1997 by Comafrica SpA
                                                                    and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
The present action is directed against the rejection by the
Commission of the complaint lodged by the applicant                                          ( Case T-6/97 )
with a view to bringing to an end Pechiney's infringement                                     ( 97/C 74/50 )
of Article 86 of the EC Treaty in the calcium metal
market.                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains, first of         An action against the Commission of the European
all, that there has been an infringement of Articles 190            Communities was brought before the Court of First
and 86 of the Treaty, as well as a manifest error of                Instance of the European Communities on 15 January
assessment, in that the Commission disregarded the link             1997 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
between Pechiney's delaying tactics and the use of the              & Co ., represented by Bernard O'Connor, with an address
anti-dumping instrument. By acting in that way, the                 for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arsene
defendant failed to verify the extent to which Pechiney             Kronshagen, Rue Marie Adelaide 22.
abused its dominant position by resorting to the anti­
dumping procedure in conjunction with its exclusion                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
practics .
                                                                    — declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
Second, the applicant also complains that the defendant                  EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC ) No 2035/96 in so far as it
has committed a manifest error of assessment, as well as                 affects the applicants, or alternatively, declare the said
an infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, inasmuch                 regulation void erga omnes,