CELEX: C1998/094/13
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and Hoogovens Staal BV against the judgment delivered on 24 October 1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-244/94 between Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and Hoogovens Groep BV and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA (Case C-441/97 P)

C 94/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The power allowed to Member States to derogate from                  Ð Infringement of the evidential principles of the rule of
the principle of the unity of excise duties (taxes and                   law, applicable in penal proceedings, that the
structure) and maintain or create additional national                    imposition of severe penalties may not be based on an
charges for specific purposes in respect of a single product             assessment of the evidence which manifestly violates
or a single category of products may only be construed                   the rules of thought and logic. The appellant submits
strictly. Any other construction would undermine the                     in the present appeal that the contradictions which
effectiveness of Community legislation on products subject               have been pointed out in the contested judgment are
to duty since it would give rise to the establishment of                 manifest and follow from the Court of First Instance's
parallel' national indirect taxation which would call in                own findings, so that there is no need for any further
question the objectives of Directive 92/12/EEC in the                    examination of the facts by the Court of Justice.
context of the internal market.
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the principle of the rule of law in
(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                            dubio pro reo, which states that in penal proceedings
(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.                                         full proof of the offence is required and doubts and
                                                                         uncertainties regarding the evidence must be assessed
                                                                         in favour of the accused and exclude the imposition of
                                                                         penalties. The presumption of innocence is a
                                                                         fundamental principle which corresponds to the
                                                                         generally accepted view of the rule of law and is
Appeal brought on 29 December 1997 by Deutsche Bahn                      furthermore codified in Article 6(2) of the European
AG against the judgment delivered on 21 October 1997                     Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                       Fundamental Freedoms, and hence to be respected by
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                   the European Union via Article F(2) of the EU Treaty
Case T-229/94 between Deutsche Bahn AG and the                           as a fundamental right. The in dubio pro reo principle
          Commission of the European Communities                         applies not only in the field of criminal law in the
                      (Case C-436/97 P)                                  strict sense, but also in the law of administrative
                                                                         offences.
                         (98/C 94/12)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 14.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 October
1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-229/94 between Deutsche Bahn AG and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              Appeal brought on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsver-
on 29 December 1997 by Deutsche Bahn AG, represented                 einigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and
by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer, Tessin,               Hoogovens Staal BV against the judgment delivered on
Herrmann & Sedemund, Berlin, with an address for                     24 October 1997 by the First Chamber, Extended
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                 Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
31 Grand Rue.                                                        European Communities in Case T-244/94 between Wirt-
                                                                     schaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          AG and Hoogovens Groep BV and the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities, supported by the Council of the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance     of       European Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati
     the European Communities of 21 October 1997 (1)         in                                Piani SpA
     Case T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission,           in                            (Case C-441/97 P)
     so far as it dismissed the application for annulment   of
                                                                                             (98/C 94/13)
     Articles 2 to 4 of the Commission's decision           of
     29 March 1994 (IV/33.941 Ð HOV-SVZ/MCN),
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October
Ð annul Articles 2 to 4 of the said Commission Decision,             1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
                                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Case T-244/94 between Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl,
                                                                     Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and Hoogovens
                                                                     Groep BV and the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Communities, supported by the Council of the European
                                                                     Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA
Ð Infringement of the principle of the rule of law,                  was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     applicable in penal proceedings generally, that the             Communities on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsvereini-
     offence complained of must be sufficiently certain to           gung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and
     make the necessary proof and examination of that                Hoogovens Staal BV (formerly Hoogovens Groep BV),
     proof possible at all; infringement of the general              represented by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of
     obligation to state reasons, which applies to courts            Deringer, Tessin, Herrmann & Sedemund, Berlin, and Erik
     too.                                                            H. Pijnacker Hordijk, Advocaat, of De Brauw, Blackstone,
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 94/7
Westbroek, Brussels, with an address for service in                 Azienda Agricola Le Canne' Srl, represented by Giulio
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                  Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonetto, of
Rue.                                                                the Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                    at the Chambers of the last named, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
                                                                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    the European Communities of 24 October 1997 (1) in
                                                                    Ð set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
    Case T-244/94 Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and
                                                                         Instance and uphold the claims put forward by the
    Others v. Commission,
                                                                         applicant at first instance,
Ð annul Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of 12 April
    1994 concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the               Ð declare null and void the Commission's                telex
    public steel sector (Ilva group) (OJ L 112, 3.5.1994,                No 12 497 of 27 October 1995,
    p. 64),
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay restitution for damage
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 suffered in the amount set out in the application,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first
                                                                         instance and in the appeal.
Infringement of Community law by the Court of First
Instance, in that it
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð misinterpreted the validity and scope of the Fifth Steel
    Aid Code,                                                       The applicant maintains that the Court of First Instance
                                                                    was wrong to consider that the principle of collegiality
Ð failed sufficiently to take into account that State               was observed. The Court of First Instance should have
    subsidies are no longer indispensable' to attain               declared the rules of procedure of the Commission
    objectives of the ECSC Treaty if they are granted more          inapplicable in so far as they allowed the acting head of
    than once only,                                                 unit to take the decision in question on his own authority.
Ð took no account of the fact that the contested                    It further maintains that the grounds of the Court of First
    Commission decision discloses a serious error of                Instance as to infringement of the principle of the right to
    assessment by the Commission simply because the                 be heard and infringement of the obligation to provide a
    decision makes its aim the strengthening of the Italian         statement of reasons were erroneous and inconsistent.
    steel industry,
                                                                    Finally, it maintains that the Court of First Instance
Ð proceeded from the incorrect assumption that                      infringed and misapplied Articles 44(1) and 47 of
    Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty does not impose a               Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (2) and Article 7 of
    strict prohibition of aid, but permits the Community            Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 (3).
    institutions to approve all aid which may contribute to
    attaining the objectives of the Treaty.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 77, 16.3.1996, p. 11.
                                                                    (2) OJ L 376, 31.12.1986, p. 7.
( ) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 16.
 1
                                                                    (3) OJ L 112, 30.4.1988, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 16 January 1998 by Azienda Agricola
Le Canne' Srl, a company incorporated under Italian law,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
established in Porto Viro, against the judgment delivered           Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze by order of that court of
on 7 November 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the            23 January 1997 in the case of CSAR Centro Servizi
European Communities in Case T-218/95 between                       Acciai Rivestiti SpA against Direzione Regionale per le
Azienda Agricola Le Canne' Srl and Commission of the               Entrate della Toscana and Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
                    European Communities                                                         Firenze
                       (Case C-10/98 P)                                                      (Case C-13/98)
                         (98/C 94/14)                                                         (98/C 94/15)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European                 European Communities by order of the Commissione Tri-
Communities in Case T-218/95 (1) between Azienda Agri-              butaria Provinciale di Firenze (Provincial Tax Court,
cola Le Canne' Srl and Commission of the European                  Florence) of 23 January 1997, which was received at the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of              Court Registry on 20 January 1998, for a preliminary
the European Communities on 16 January 1998 by                      ruling in the case of CSAR Centro Servizi Acciai Rivestiti