CELEX: C1998/055/60
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by BSC Footwear Supplies and Others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-598/97)

C 55/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.98
on the Decision to those third parties who are addressees          Communities on 19 December 1997 by BSC Footwear
of the Decision. In addition, the Commission may not               Supplies, represented by Alasdair Bell and Mark Powell,
validly notify the Decision to two other supposed                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
addressees via the applicant, simply on the basis of the           Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
limited corporate links between the applicant and Siderca.
It is submitted that the notion of a single economic entity
is not relevant to the question whether a duty may be              The applicants claim that the Court should:
imposed on one addressee of a Decision to pass on copies
of that decision to other addressees. Moreover, inasmuch
as one of the addressees of the decision is the Techint           Ð annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2155/97 imposing
Group' an additional difficulty arises, since the Techint              definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of textile
Group' is not an identifiable legal entity but an                       upper footwear originating in the People's Republic of
appellation used to refer to a number of different                      China and Indonesia and collecting definitively the
undertakings engaged in diversified businesses ultimately               provisional duty imposed, and
controlled by San Faustin NV. Accordingly, even if the
applicant were to be required to pass on the decision, it
would be unable to do so since it would be unable to               Ð order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant
identify one of the addressees of the decision.                         companies in the present proceedings.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Furthermore, it is clear from the wording of Article 2 of
the contested Decision that the Commission considers the
applicant to be jointly liable with each of the other              The applicants, who are the same as those in Case T-73/
addressees for the payment of any periodic penalty                 97 (1), seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
payments which would be imposed pursuant to                        No 2155/97 (2) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
Article 16(1)(c) of Regulation No 17 on the Techint               on imports of footwear with textile uppers originating in
Group' and/or Siderca, should Siderca not provide the              the People's Republic of China and Indonesia. The pleas
information requested in the Decision. In so doing, the            in law and main arguments concerning the alleged
Commission has infringed both Articles 11 and 16 of                infringement of Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 3283/
Regulation No 17 and the principle of individual liability         94 (3) are the same as those raised in that case.
which is enshrined in that Regulation. Neither Article 11
nor Article 16, nor any other provision of Regulation
No 17 empowers the Commission to impose penalty                    In addition, the applicants plead infringement of
payments on one undertaking for the failure by another             Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 in that
undertaking to supply information requested from it in a           material injury was not established in relation to
Decision pursuant to Article 11(5). Moreover, as a                 Community industry' as defined by law.
consequence of the enforcement of the contested Decision,
it would be deprived of its essential procedural rights of
defence.                                                           Furthermore, the applicants plead infringement of
                                                                   Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 3283/94.
                                                                   In the administrative proceedings prior to the adoption of
Finally, the applicant submits that the contested Decision,        Regulation (EC) No 2155/97 the Commission failed to
apart from being inconsistent, contradictory and                   respect the procedural guarantees to which the applicants
insufficiently reasoned, fixes a higher level of penalty           were entitled pursuant to Article 20 of the basic anti-
payments than is permitted by Article 16(1) of Regulation          dumping Regulation. In particular, the right of the
No 17.                                                             applicants to obtain final disclosure', and to comment on
                                                                   the contents of that disclosure, was infringed by the
                                                                   Commission. The applicants' rights of defence were
                                                                   thereby violated.
                                                                   Finally, the applicants  claim that the decision to impose a
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by BSC Footwear                 49,2 % anti-dumping       duty on a product which it is
Supplies and Others against the Council of the European            practically impossible    to source in the Community (i.e.
                           Union                                   vulcanised footwear)     is disproportionate and, therefore,
                                                                   unlawful.
                      (Case T-598/97)
                        (98/C 55/60)                               (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997, p. 17.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 298, 1.11.1997, p. 1.
                                                                   (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994
                                                                       on protection against dumped imports from countries not
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       members of the European Community (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994,
                                                                       p. 1).
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European