CELEX: C1998/234/70
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 June 1998 by AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp companies against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-90/98)

25.7.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/37
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                b) order the Commission to pay the following amounts,
                                                                       which are equivalent to (i) the sums of fine payable by
The applicant is a trade association of private mining                 the Commission to the applicants together with (ii)
undertakings. By the application, made under Article 33                interest on those sums calculated at the official
of the ECSC Treaty, the applicant seeks a declaration that             discount rate of the Banque Nationale de Belgique
the decision of the Commission of 27 April 1998 not to                 plus 1 % of the EMCF rate plus 1,5 % from the date
act on the Supplemental Complaint submitted to it by the               of payment of the fines by the Swedish addressees
applicant is void in so far as it relates to the complaints            until 31 May 1993, in compensation for the
made against the Central Electricity generating Board                  Commission's unlawful refusal to discharge the
(CEGB) and British Coal. The Supplemental Complaint,                   obligations arising as a result of the Wood pulp
dated 15 June 1994, dealt with excessive royalties charged             judgment:
by British Coal and discriminatory pricing operated by the
CEGB in relation to the price paid for coal in the licensed            Ð to AssiDomän Kraft Products AB: (i) ECU 130 000
sector.                                                                    plus (ii) BF 4 573 470.13 or ECU 107 867.02;
The applicant submits that Article 63(1) of the ECSC                   Ð to AB Iggesunds Bruk: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(b) of the ECSC                       1 019 686.33 or ECU 24 117.25;
Treaty, imposes an obligation on the Commission to adopt
a finding in relation to past infringements. Article 66(7)
                                                                       Ð to Korsnäs AB: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
of the ECSC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(d) of
                                                                           1 055 459.43 or ECU 24 893.32;
the ECSC Treaty, likewise imposes an obligation on the
Commission to adopt a finding in relation to past
infringements. The imposition of excessive royalties under             Ð to MoDo Paper AB: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
the licence agreements between British Coal and the                        1 055 459.43 of ECU 24 893.32;
licensed operators falls within the scope of Article 65 of
the ECSC Treaty.                                                       Ð to Södra Cell AB: (i) ECU 80 000 plus (ii) BF
                                                                           2 814 464.79 or ECU 66 380.18;
Furthermore, the Commission has manifestly failed to
fulfil its duty properly to consider the Supplemental                  Ð to Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB: (i) ECU
Complaint, its evidence and its own prior findings, and is                 190 000 plus (ii) BF 6 684 318.72 or ECU
manifestly in breach of Articles 63(1), 66(7) and 65 of the                157 652.15;
ECSC Treaty.
                                                                       Ð to Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA): (i) ECU 130 000
Finally, the Commission was not entitled to adopt a                        plus (ii) BF 4 573 470.13 or ECU 107 867.02;
decision on the basis that the applicant had not supplied
sufficient evidence. On the contrary, the applicant had
consistently indicated its readiness to provide further            c) by way of compensation for the loss caused by the
evidence if the Commission so required.                                Commission's inexcusable delay in not discharging by
                                                                       31 May 1993 the obligations arising as a result of the
                                                                       Wood pulp judgment, order the Commission to pay to
                                                                       the applicants (i) compensatory interest in such
                                                                       amounts as the Court considers just and appropriate
                                                                       compensation for their loss, or (ii) default interest at
Action brought on 5 June 1998 by AssiDomän Kraft                       8 % on the amounts set out under (b) above, in either
Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp companies                  case from 1 June 1993 up until the Court's judgment
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  in this case;
                      (Case T-90/98)
                                                                   d) order the Commission to pay the applicants interest at
                       (98/C 234/70)
                                                                       8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be
                                                                       paid under subparagraphs (b) and (c) above as from
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       the date of the Court's judgment in this case until
                                                                       actual payment;
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1998 by             e) order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish
wood pulp companies, represented by John Pheasant, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.
                                                                   In 1985 numerous undertakings (amongst them the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        applicants), active in the wood pulp business, were the
                                                                   addressees of the Commission decision stating that they
a) annul the Commission decision contained in the letter           had committed infringements of Article 85(1) of the EC
     of 26 March 1998 bearing the reference SG(98)D/               Treaty (the Wood pulp decision' (1)). Fines were imposed,
     2434;                                                         which have been paid by the addressees.
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/38             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
Some of the addressees brought actions for annulment                 Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos
of that decision pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty.                         against the European Parliament
On 31 March 1993 the Court of Justice ruled that the                                        (Case T-93/98)
Wood pulp decision' was unlawful (the Wood pulp
judgment' (2)).                                                                              (98/C 234/71)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-227/95 (3) brought by the applicants, the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities annulled a             An action against the European Parliament was brought
refusal by the Commission to repay the fines which are               before the Court of First Instance of the European
the subject-matter of the contested decision in this case.           Communities on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos, residing
                                                                     at Niederanven (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo
In Case T-292/97 (4) the applicants seek (inter alia) a              Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
declaration pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that            service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 Route de
the Commission had failed to act on the obligations                  Longwy.
arising out of the judgment in Case T-227/95.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
In the present case the applicants submit that the                   Ð annul as unfounded the existing staff report on Mr
contested decision constitutes a repeated failure by the                  Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
Commission to comply with Article 176 of the EC Treaty.                   1 January 1997;
Its refusal to comply with the obligations arising out of
the Wood pulp judgment' was condemned as unlawful by                Ð declare unfounded the decision of the European
the Court of First Instance. It has now repeated its refusal             Parliament not to amend the staff report on Mr
to comply with the obligations arising out of the Wood                  Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
pulp judgment' and has refused to comply with the                        1 January 1997;
judgment of the Court of First Instance as well.
                                                                     Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pursuant to Article 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty, the
contested decision should be annulled since it is in breach          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the Commission's obligations under Article 176 of the
Treaty and of the judgment in Case T-227/95.                         The applicant, a grade LA 5 official in Directorate-
                                                                     General 7 of the defendant institution, considers that his
                                                                     staff report for the period 1995Ð1997 does not accurately
Pursuant to Article 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, the                reflect the situation concerning his employment. That
Commission should be ordered to pay the applicants                   error of assessment results from a lack of objectivity and
compensation equivalent to the sums paid by them by way              from certain omissions in the precise description of the
of fines in respect of the alleged infringements found at            tasks performed by him.
Articles 1(1) and 1(2) of the Wood pulp decision',
together with interest from the date of payment of the
                                                                     In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement
fines until the date by which the Commission should have
                                                                     of the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff
complied with its obligations under the Wood pulp
                                                                     Regulations and breach of the general principles of
judgment', and interest in respect of the loss caused to the
                                                                     equality of treatment and of fairness.
applicants by the Commission's delay in complying with
its obligations under the Wood pulp judgment'.
                                                                     He considers in that regard that the failure to take into
                                                                     account all the tasks and missions carried out by him
(1) Decision 85/202/EEC (IV/29.725 Ð Wood pulp), OJ L 85 of
    26.3.1985, p. 1.                                                 during the period under consideration resulted in an
(2) Joined Cases C-89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85          incorrect appraisal of his ability, efficiency and conduct,
    [1993] ECR I-1307.                                               thereby distorting the administration's assessment in
(3) AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others v Commission              relation to him. Since he was not assessed in the light of
    [1997] ECR II-1185; appealed (Case C-310/97 P).                  all the factors which should have been taken into
(4) pending.                                                         consideration by the appointing authority, he was not
                                                                     treated on an equal footing with his colleagues and was
                                                                     unfairly treated.