CELEX: C2002/169/70
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-138/02: Action brought on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink International Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

13.7.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/39
on Irish Sugar plc. The applicant would point out in this               —     in the alternative, partially annul Decision C (2001) 4447
regard that, as a result of the judgment of the Court of First                final of the Commission of the European Communities
instance of 7 October 1999 in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar -v-                   of 15 January 2002 to the extent that the claim for
Commission (1), the fine imposed on Irish Sugar by Com-                       repayment established by the Commission in Article 1
mission Decision 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997, relating to a                      exceeds EUR 2 808 319,95;
proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC Treaty, was
reduced by 916 674 Euros. The defendant refused to pay                  —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
interest on this amount.
According to the Commission, the implied Decision not to                Pleas in law and main arguments
pay interest, i.e. the payment of the principal sum without
interest on 4 January 2000, has become definitive, the
applicant not having contested it within the two month time             In Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission found
limit, as provided by Article 230 of the EC Treaty.                     that the aid amounting to EUR 3 650 860 granted by Germany
                                                                        to Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow, was incompatible with the
                                                                        common market. The applicant is challenging that decision
The applicant submits in this regard that this reasoning is             and claims that the declaration of partial incompatibility with
materially wrong. Firstly, the initial request was not for actual       the common market of the aid granted to it infringes
payment but for confirmation that interest would be paid; for           Community law. All the grounds on which the decision is
advice as to the amount thereof and for assistance in this              founded are based on errors of law or on a manifestly incorrect
matter. Secondly, there is no rule in EC Law according to               assessment of the facts.
which silence must be taken to mean a refusal, unless provision
is specifically made for this. Thirdly, not only is payment of
the refund of 916 674 Euros not a refusal of the initial request        The applicant claims that it satisfied the SME criteria defined
for confirmation regarding interest, it is also, within the             in the Commission’s Recommendation of 3 April 1996
meaning of Article 230 EC, not an actionable act. It follows            concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enter-
that the Commission’s contention that the applicant should              prises (1) at the time when the aid was granted. Moreover, the
have challenged it at the time is legally erroneous.                    applicant did not circumvent those criteria.
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant submits that a review of the
(1) [1999] ECR II-2969.
                                                                        economic integration in individual cases which is not based
                                                                        on the SME criteria is illegal because it is precisely those criteria
                                                                        which must be used to determine whether or not there is
                                                                        economic integration. In any event, there is no economic
                                                                        integration.
                                                                        Alternatively, the applicant submits that the claim for repay-
Action brought on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier Malchow                    ment is too high and that its calculation is unclear.
GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 107, p. 4.
                         (Case T-137/02)
                        (2002/C 169/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        Action brought on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink
                                                                        International Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                                                                                                       Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                       (Case T-138/02)
European Communities on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier
Malchow GmbH & Co., Malchow (Germany), represented by
S. Völcker and J. Heithecker, lawyers.                                                           (2002/C 169/70)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul in its entirety Decision C (2001) 4447 final of the
      Commission of the European Communities of 15 January              An action against the Council of the European Union was
      2002;                                                             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/40                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
Communities on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink Inter-                 Action brought on 29 April 2002 by the public limited
national Co. Ltd., represented by Mr Paul Waer of Vermulst              company Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis
Waer & Verhaeghe, Brussels (Belgium).                                   N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes
                                                                        Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, the Panellinia Enosi
                                                                        Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis and the
                                                                        Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epangelmatikis Ekpai-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             defsis kai Katartisis against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                               pean Communities
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) no 215/2002
      of 28 January 2002 in so far as it imposes an anti-                                        (Case T-139/02)
      dumping duty on Nanjing Metalink International Co.
      Ltd.;
                                                                                                (2002/C 169/71)
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Greek)
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 29 April 2002 by Idiotiko Institou-
The applicant is a company in the People’s Republic of China            to Epangelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnoris-
producing ferro molybdenum. In the contested Decision (1),              menes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, a public
the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports           limited company whose seat is in Athens, the Panellinia Enosi
of ferro molybdenum originating from China.                             Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis, whose seat
                                                                        is in Athens, and the Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis
                                                                        Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis, whose seat is in
The applicant states that it was granted Market Economy                 Athens, represented by Th. Antoniou and Kh. Tsiliotis, of the
Treatment in the Regulation imposing a provisional duty (2),            Athens Bar.
which resulted in a reduced anti-dumping duty for the
applicant. This treatment was revoked in the contested
Decision. The applicant claims that by revoking the Market              The applicants claim that the Court should:
Economy Treatment which was granted on the basis of the
same investigation, the Council breached Article 2(7) (c) of            —     allow the application;
Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96 (3). According to the
applicant, the Council did not follow the procedures                    —     annul the contested decision of 27 February 2002
prescribed in Regulation 384/96 for the revocation of                         adopted by the Directorate-General for Employment and
Market Economy Treatment. Instead, the initial determination                  Social Affairs of the Commission with the objective of
made should have remained in force until a new investigation                  invalidating the unlawful refusal of the Commission —
was conducted.                                                                for the reasons set out in the grounds of the application —
                                                                              to remove the unlawful distinction between private and
                                                                              public vocational training bodies so far as concerns the
Secondly, the applicant submits that by revoking the grant of                 financing exclusively of the latter by the third Community
Market Economy Treatment, the Council exceeded its powers                     support framework and, in particular, by the operational
under Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96. According to the                     programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training II’.
applicant, the Council does not have the power to revoke a
grant of Market Economy Treatment without instituting a
fresh investigation.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2002 of 28 January 2002
    imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ferro         —     Infringement of provisions of Council Regulation
    molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ              No 1260/1999.
    L 35, 6.2.2002, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1612/2001 of 3 August 2001            —     Infringement of provisions of primary law.
    imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro
    molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ
    L 214, 8.8.2001, p. 3).                                             —     Infringement of the principle of equality laid down by
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                  Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty.
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members
    of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).                —     Infringement of the principle of subsididarity.