CELEX: C2003/124/44
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-74/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

24.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 124/25
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     find the defendant liable for the harm suffered by the
      applicants as a result of the attack on 27 March 2002 on                                     (Case T-74/03)
      the Park Hotel in Netanya (Israel);
—     order the defendant, in respect of the harm suffered by                                     (2003/C 124/44)
      the applicants, to pay the following amounts:
                                                                                            (Language of the case: German)
      —     to Lucien Zaoui, EUR 1 million in compensation for
            non-material damage;
      —     to Bernard Zaoui, EUR 1,5 million, in compensation           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            for non-material damage;                                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.,
      —     to Déborah Stain, née Zaoui:                                 Lomm (Netherlands), represented by M. Karl, Rechtsanwalt.
            —    EUR 1 million in respect of bodily injury;              The applicant claims that the Court should:
            —    EUR 2 millions in respect of non-material               —     annul the Commission’s decision of 17 December 2002
                 damage;                                                       (Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Special Graphite);
            —    an amount to be settled in the course of                —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3(h)
                 proceedings for material damage.                              of the decision;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant distributes isostatically pressed special graphite,
The applicants are relatives of Mrs Zaoui, who died on                   but does not itself produce it. Its activity in the European
27 March 2002 when a Palestinian terrorist carried out an                special graphite market is based on a cooperation agreement
attack on a hotel in Israel. The applicants claim that the               between itself and Ibiden Co. Ltd., a Japanese producer
education in the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and in         of isostatic special graphite. The Commission accused the
the Gaza strip is the certain and direct cause of the attack             applicant, a former subsidiary of the latter and various
which cost Mrs Zaoui her life, since that education incites              producers of isostatic special graphite (including Ibiden) of
individuals to hatred and terrorism. They claim that the                 taking part in a continuing agreement and/or concerted
defendant participated financially in that form of education,            practice on the market for special graphite in the European
the content of which it was presumably aware of and on which             Community and the European Economic Area. According to
it could have an influence. According to the applicants, the             the Commission’s finding, the applicant participated from
defendant also infringed the provisions applicable to the                February 1994 to May 1997 at European and regional level.
financial support programmes (Articles 6 and 177(2) of the
EC Treaty), the principles of sound financial management, the
agreements entered into between the Communities and the
                                                                         The applicant argues that the Commission has wrongly
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian
refugees (UNRWA), Article 3 of Regulation No 1488/96/EC                  classified it as an offender. In reality, at least for the period up
and Amendment No 177 to the 2002 EC General Budget. In                   to 26 September 1995, the applicant could only be classified
                                                                         as a helper of Ibiden. According to Article 15(2) of Regulation
that context, they claim that the liability of the Communities
has been incurred by virtue of the second paragraph of                   No 17, a helper cannot be punished with a fine. The applicant
                                                                         further maintains that the Commission ignored several mitigat-
Article 288 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         ing circumstances, particularly the subsidiary role of the
                                                                         applicant, and the fact that it voluntarily ended its participation
                                                                         long before the other participants and long before the Com-
                                                                         mission first intervened.
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/26              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                      24.5.2003
The applicant further argues that the fine is flagrantly dispro-           The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
portionate to its economic strength and is therefore a breach              in the abovementioned case. The applicant claims that there is
of the principle of proportionality and the Commission’s                   no such single undertaking as Siderpotenza-Lucchini and,
guidelines on fines. The Commission also breached the                      therefore, that the applicant is substantially unconnected to
principle of equal treatment by not fining any of the other                the infringement which is the subject of the decision. In point
marketing companies involved in the cartel and, furthermore,               of fact, the Commission has not take into account of the fact
by imposing fines on the participating manufacturers which,                that Lucchini SpA has never produced concrete reinforcing
measured in relation to turnover, were far lower than that                 bars.
determined in relation to the applicant. Since the Commission
gave no reason for that worse treatment, there was also an
infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253
EC.
                                                                           Action brought on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands against the Commission of the
                                                                                                European Communities
Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.                                                   (Case T-85/03)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (2003/C 124/46)
                         (Case T-80/03)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
                        (2003/C 124/45)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Ms Eleanor Sharpston, QC.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.,
represented by Alberto Santa Maria and Claudio Biscaretti di               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ruffia, lawyers.
                                                                           —     annul the Commission’s decision not to respond to the
                                                                                 urgent request of the Cayman Islands Government to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      establish a Partnership Working Party under the Overseas
                                                                                 Association Decision,
—     annul the decision of 17 December 2002 C(2002)5087
      final in Case COMP/37.956 — concrete reinforcing bars,               —     order the Commission to pay the Cayman Islands Govern-
      imposing on Lucchini SpA, jointly and severally with S.P.                  ment’s costs.
      SpA, previously known as Siderpotenza SpA, a fine of
      EUR 16,14 million;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      applicant by the Commission;
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.                 The Decision challenged in the current case is the Com-
                                                                           mission’s Decision not to respond to the urgent request of the
                                                                           applicant for the establishment of a Partnership Working Party
                                                                           (‘PWP’), in accordance with Article 7 of Council Decision
                                                                           2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            overseas countries and territories (OCTs) within the European
                                                                           Community ( 1). The request was made in order to consider
                                                                           OCT representations in relation to the proposal for a Council
The present action has been brought against the decision                   Directive on taxation of savings income in the form of interest
contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                               payments and/or the automatic exchange of information.