CELEX: C1999/086/44
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 January 1999 by HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-9/99)

C 86/24                EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
    Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (4) as well as the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    relevant provisions of the WTO Anti-Dumping
    Agreement.
                                                                   The Commission accuses the applicants, with other
                                                                   producers of pre-insulated district heating pipes, of
                                                                   participating in a system of agreements in restraint of
Ð The Council failed to respect the principle of                   competition during the period from October 1991 until at
    legitimate expectation.                                        least March or April 1996. The applicants are alleged,
                                                                   inter alia, to have shared the market, agreed prices and
                                                                   manipulated supplies, and to have engaged in concerted
                                                                   practices intended to damage competitors not participating
Ð The Council infringed the principle of proportionallity.         in the cartel.
(1) OJ L  33, 4.2.1997, p. 11.                                     A fine of ECU 4 950 000            was    imposed   on   the
(2) OJ L  208, 2.8.1997, p. 31.                                    Henss/Isoplus Gruppe'.
(3) OJ L  296, 5.11.1998, p. 1.
(4) OJ L  56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
                                                                   The applicants argue that the Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                   GmbH Ð Stille Gesellschaft' referred to in the decision
                                                                   does not have legal personality, is not capable of being a
                                                                   party and cannot therefore properly be an adressee under
                                                                   Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty or a party in a proceeding
                                                                   under Regulation No 17/62. They argue further that the
                                                                   loose Gruppe Henns/Isoplus' is a structure without legal
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by HFB Holding für               personality and thus also not capable of being a party,
Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co.                with the result that there has been a breach of the
KG and Others against the Commission of the European               essential procedural requirements laid down by Regulation
                           Communities                             No 17/62.
                          (Case T-9/99)
                                                                   The applicants also plead:
                         (1999/C 86/44)
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                       Articles 3 and 15 of Regulation No 17/62;
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   Ð infringement of the right to a proper hearing and the
                                                                       duty to state reasons, since the statement of objections
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       was never served;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
1999 by HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-             Ð infringement of Article 6(2) of the European
gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Rosenheim (Germany) and                     Convention on Human Rights and the principle of
four Others, represented by Peter Krömer and Friedrich                 mens rea under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62;
Nusterer, Rechtsanwälte, St Pölten (Austria).
                                                                   Ð infringement of Commission Decision 94/810/ECSC,
                                                                       EC of 12 December 1994 on the terms of reference of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            hearing officers in competition procedures before the
                                                                       Commission (OJ 1994 L 330, p. 67), and Regulation
                                                                       No 99/63/EEC;
1. annul the Commission's decision of 21 October 1998
    concerning a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             Ð infringement of the formal requirements of
    Treaty (Case IV/35.691/E-4, Fernwärmetechnik-Kar-                  Articles 3(3) and 4 of Regulation No 99/63/EEC in
    tell), as amended by the Commission's corrective                   conjunction with Article 19 of Regulation No 17/62
    decision of 6 November 1998 (Case IV/35.691 Ð                      and Articles 6 and 7 of Commission Decision
    Vorisolierte Rohre);                                               94/810/ECSC, EC;
                                                                   Ð infringement      of further defence rights, such as
2. reduce the fines imposed on the applicants (or, as the              insufficiently  long periods for the making of
    case may be, the Gruppe Henns/Isoplus') by the above              observations   and failure to provide translation of
    decision;                                                          documents in   foreign languages;
                                                                   Ð infringement of the duty to state reasons under
3. order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 86/25
The applicants further claim that the Commission's                  (a) to rule upon the notification by Germany of an
Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed                        amendment to the plan approved by Commission
pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 and                     Decision 94/1070/ECSC; and
Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (1) are unlawful pursuant
to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, since the guidelines
constitute a genuine regulation, which the Commission               (b) to authorise Germany to grant aid to its coal industry
was not competent to issue.                                              1998.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
Finally, the applicants complain of irregularities in the           amendment to the plan on the following grounds:
setting of the fine. For example, their cooperation was not
sufficiently taken into account, and the principles that a
fine should not exceed 10 % of turnover or threaten to              Ð Infringement of an essential procedural
lead to insolvency were ignored.                                         requirement / lack of reasoning:
(1) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3.
                                                                         the contested decision makes no mention of the
                                                                         purported amendments to the plan in the operative
                                                                         part of the ruling. Accordingly, there has been no
                                                                         ruling under Article 8(4) of the Code (2) as to the
                                                                         amendments to the plant notified by Germany.
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by RJB Mining PLC                 Ð Manifest failure to observe the provisions
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    o f t h e E C S C Tr e a t y a n d / o r a n y r u l e o f
                                                                         law relating to its application and misuse
                        (Case T-12/99)                                   of powers:
                        (1999/C 86/45)
                                                                         the purported ruling proceeds on the entirely false
                                                                         basis that the three main recipients of aid continued to
                (Language of the case: English)                          exist separately throughout 1998 and fails to take into
                                                                         account of the merger of those recipients in August
                                                                         1998 or the massive state aid inherent in and
An action against the Commission of the European                         conditional on the merger. Further, the purported
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        ruling, in so far as it relates to operating aid, makes
Instance of the European Communities on 18 January                       no assessment under Article 3(2) and Article 8 of the
1999 by RJB Mining PLC, represented by Mark Philip                       Code as to whether the amended plan requires the
Brealey, of Brick Court Chambers, and Jonathan Alex                      relevant undertakings to be capable of becoming
Lawrence, Solicitor of Freshfields, with an address for                  viable within the foreseeable future.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
                                                                    authorisation of aid for 1998 on similar grounds to those
                                                                    raised in Case T-110/98.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    (1) Case T-110/98 (OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38.
                                                                    (2) Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
1. annul the Commission Decision of 2 December 1998
     relating to aid to the German coal industry for 1998;
     and
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of action,
     including those of the applicant.                              Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal
                                                                         Health against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                            (Case T-13/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                            (1999/C 86/46)
The applicant, which has already challenged the decision                            (Language of the case: English)
relating to aid paid to the German coal industry for
1997 (1), seeks in the present application the annulment of
the decision relating to aid for 1998 (the contested                An action against the Council of the European Union was
decision) which purports:                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European