CELEX: C1998/055/59
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 December 1997 by Dalmine SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-596/97)

20.2.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 55/29
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                     relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                               Giulia v. Commission (1).
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                          (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
Action brought on 11 December 1997 by Anna Maria                        Action brought on 17 December 1997 by Dalmine SpA
Baldo and Others against the Commission of the                             against the Commission of the European Communities
                    European Communities                                                        (Case T-596/97)
                        (Case T-313/97)
                                                                                                  (98/C 55/59)
                          (98/C 55/58)
                                                                                       (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
Instance of the European Communities on 11 December                     1997 by Dalmine SpA, represented by Fabrizio Arossa,
1997 by Mr and Mrs Baldo Anna Maria, Lena Livio,                        Avvocato, and Rachel Brandenburger, Solicitor of
Peresson Francesco, Burello Angelo, Iuretig Ugo, Buiatti                Freshfields, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Gianfranco, Buiatti Eligio, Koren Alberto, Plesnicar Luigi,             the office of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 place Winston
Marega Antonella, Interbartolo Gandolfo, Bandelli Luigi,                Churchill, Luxembourg.
Minutillo Vincenzo, Pontarini Roberto, Misson Luigi,
Ferro Luigi, Zanin Mario Tristano, Krt Narcizo, Nicoletti
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Renato, Damiani Gilberto, Bergamo Giuseppe, Frosutto
Renato, Zanin Lucio, Smoljan Liberato, De Monte
Gianantonio, Liva Guido, Dominutti Giancarlo, Taboga                    Ð on the grounds more particularly set out in the
Silvio, Mini Dino, Agostinis Luigi, Fontana Silvano,                         application, annul Articles 2 and 4 of Commission
Caruzzi Luciano, Di Bidino Amabile, Tomasin Renzo,                           Decision C(97) 3036 of 6 October 1997 in so far as
Narduzzi Sereno, Collorigh Edo, Rizzi Giuliano, Coppola                      these Articles relate to the applicant,
Aurelio, Piron Robertino, Amerio Paolo (ditta Amerio
Carlo & c.), Amerio Paolo (ditta Percotrans di Paolo
Amerio & c.), Murello Aurelio, Aristone Claudio, Budola                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Giuliano, Coppola Aurelio, Deganis Luciano, Fantini
Enzo, Uboldi Attilio, Culino Paolino, Bernardis Arrigo,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Miniussi Alfio, Monai Patrizia, Cok Celeste, Di Vora
Angelo, represented by Vincenzo Cinque and Luciana
Candriella, of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at            The applicant, a public limited company incorporated
the Chambers of Luciana Candriella, aÁ Udine, via                       under Italian law, partially challenges a Decision arising
Morpurgo, 34.                                                           out of an investigation by the Commission into alleged
                                                                        infringements of Article 85 of the EC Treaty by producers
                                                                        of steel tubes. According to the applicant, even though
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Article 4 of the contested Decision formally mentions
                                                                        three addressees, the same provision shows that the
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of                         Commission has attempted to notify the Decision to
     30 July 1997,                                                      Siderca Saic, an indirect parent company of the applicant,
                                                                        and to the Techint Group', both established in Argentina,
                                                                        by delivering it to the applicant at its registered address.
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with               The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid             has infringed an essential procedural requirement, misused
     was paid,                                                          its powers and infringed the EC Treaty and the rules
                                                                        relating to its application, since it is not entitled to send a
                                                                        request for information to third parties by way of a
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                    Decision pursuant to Article 11(5) of Regulation No 17
     Communities to pay the costs.                                      notified to the applicant and to require the latter to pass
 ---pagebreak--- 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