CELEX: C2000/149/74
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-67/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by NKK Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

27.5.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In that connection it raises the following pleas:
                                                                         — Infringement of the rights of the defence, of Articles 872
                                                                              and 906 of Regulation No 2454/93, the principles of
Principally:                                                                  procedural equality and of sound administration. The
                                                                              Commission omitted, when it was minded to depart from
                                                                              the view taken by the customs authority, to have the
— order the Commission to produce all documents on                            applicant heard by the national authority. It did not arrange
    which it based the contested decision, together with all                  for the applicant to receive the documents and decisions
    documents, including administrative items, which have a                   on which its complaints concerning waiver of post-
    bearing on this matter, comprising for example the                        clearance recovery and/or remittance are based. By not
    documents which prompted the Commission in 1993 to                        making available documents which could have been of use
    organise a mission to Turkey to conduct an investigation                  to the applicant’s arguments the Commission infringed the
    into the issue of ATR certificates for television sets, the               principle of procedural equality.
    results of that mission and the reports drawn up concern-
    ing it, any correspondence between the Commission and                — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79.
    the Member States as well as between the Commission and                   The Commission was wrong to adjudge that the criteria
    the Turkish authorities on this subject etc, for examination              for the application of that article were not met.
    by the Court and production to the applicant so as to
    enable it to investigate whether it can use those documents          — Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
    in further support of this application and the pleas and                  Regulation No 1430/79. The Commission was wrong to
    arguments raised therein;                                                 take the view that the situation in the present case did not
                                                                              constitute ‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of
                                                                              that article.
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 14 December 1999 rejecting the request                — Infringement of the principle that decisions must be
    by the Kingdom of Belgium to refrain in favour of the                     supported by a statement of the reasons on which they are
    applicant from the post-clearance recovery of import                      based (Article 253 EC).
    duties or to remit them on imports of television sets from
    Turkey in the period from 8 October 1991 to 28 May                   — In the alternative, infringement of the principle of pro-
    1993 inclusive (Decision C(1999) 4419 fin);                               portionality and of Articles 2 and 3 of the Additional
                                                                              Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement.
— order the Commission to pay the costs;
In the alternative, if the decision is not annulled:
— none the less order the Commission to pay the costs (its               Action brought on 23 March 2000 by NKK Corporation
    own and the applicant’s);                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-67/00)
In the further alternative:
                                                                                                  (2000/C 149/74)
— order the Commission to pay its own costs.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 23 March 2000 by NKK Corpor-
                                                                         ation (Tokyo), represented by Martin Smith and Conor Magui-
                                                                         re, Solicitors, Simmons & Simmons, Brussels.
The applicant’s action under the fourth paragraph of Article
230 of the EC Treaty is for annulment of the Commission’s                The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision of 14 December 1999 rejecting the request by the
Kingdom of Belgium to refrain in favour of the applicant from            — pursuant to Article 230 EC, review the legality of the
the post-clearance recovery of import duties or to remit them                 contested decision and, in so far as it relates to the
on imports of television sets from Turkey in the period from                  applicant, annul it pursuant to Article 231 EC, in the
8 October 1991 to 28 May 1993 inclusive.                                      alternative;
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/40              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
— pursuant to Article 229 EC, should it uphold the decision             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer against
    in whole or in part, reduce the fine.                                      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-70/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (2000/C 149/75)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
In the contested decision, the Commission asserts that the
applicant was, between 1977 and 1995, party to an agreement
which had the object and the effect of restricting or distorting        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition in the supply of seamless standard OCTG and line            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
pipe within the common market and which affected trade                  European Communities on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer,
between Members States.                                                 residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
                                                                        of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.
This application raises six main pleas against the Commission’s
factual and legal assessment, namely:                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the contested decision of 24 January 2000;
— manifest error in the assessment of the facts of the case;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
— failure properly to assess the trade barriers which are the
    natural explanation of the applicant’s lack of activity on
    the French, German and Italian markets for the duration             Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the alleged infringement;
                                                                        The applicant has worked since 1984 as a member of the
— breach of essential procedural requirements by preventing             Commission’s temporary staff (interpreter). His temporary
    the applicant from exercising its rights of defence to the full     appointment was renewed a number of times. In 1988 his
    and by the manner in which it obtained the documentary              position as a member of the temporary staff was prolonged
    evidence used against the applicant;                                indefinitely. He was on that occasion also required to take part
                                                                        in the next external open competition for interpreters. In 1989
                                                                        the applicant unsuccessfully applied to sit internal competition
                                                                        COM/LA/2/89. His action against the decision of the selection
— failure to assess properly the evidence on the Commission’s           board in that competition was upheld. He was also successful
    file which seriously undermines not only the finding in             in his action against the decision terminating his appointment
    recital 164 of the decision but also irretrievably weakens          as a member of the temporary staff. Contrary to the agreements
    the validity and accuracy of the key elements of the case           concluded, the Commission decided to re-open and continue
    against the applicant;                                              internal competition COM/LA/2/89, and it called on the
                                                                        applicant to take part in it. The applicant was unsuccessful in
                                                                        that competition. The Commission thereupon terminated his
— failure to assess properly in law the applicant’s partici-            contract for an indefinite period, referring to the decision of
    pation in the alleged infringement; and                             the selection board in the aforementioned internal compe-
                                                                        tition. His appeal against that decision was dismissed. By
                                                                        decision of 24 January 2000 the Commission confirmed the
                                                                        decision to dismiss him. The present action challenges that
— failure to reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, in               decision.
    accordance with the principles laid down in the relevant
    Commission Notices.
                                                                        Grounds of the application:
                                                                        — the decision dismissing the applicant is wrongly based on
                                                                             the decision of the selection board in the aforementioned
                                                                             internal competition not to include him on the list of
                                                                             suitable candidates;