CELEX: C2003/101/75
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-47/03: Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Primarily:
                                                                          —     partially annul, on the basis of Article 230, EC Treaty,
                                                                                Council Decision 2002/947/EC of 12 December 2002
1.    annul Article 1 of the decision in so far as it states that               implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/
      the applicant was involved in a single, comprehensive                     2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
      and ongoing cartel in the Italian market for solid and                    certain persons and entities with a view to combating
      hollow round reinforcing rods, the purpose of effect of                   terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 337,
      which was to fix prices by, inter alia, restricting or                    p. 85) and more specifically annul Article 1, point 1.25
      controlling production or sales;                                          of said decision and annul partially Article 1, point 2.14
                                                                                of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the
2.    annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision in so far as                 applicant;
      it imposes a fine of EUR 26,9 million on the applicant;
                                                                          —     declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241, EC Treaty,
In the alternative:                                                             Council Regulation EC 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001
                                                                                on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
—     reduce the fine of EUR 26,9 million imposed on the                        persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
      applicant by Article 2 of the decision, and                               (OJ L 344, p. 7);
In any event:
                                                                          —     require the Community to compensate the applicant on
                                                                                the basis of article 235 and 288 in an amount to be fixed
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    ex aequo et bono of not less than EUR 100 000;
                                                                          —     require the respondent parties to bear the costs of suit.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought against the same decision as that
challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
in that case.                                                             The applicant lives in the Netherlands and, in 1992, was
                                                                          recognized as a refugee in accordance with the Geneva Refugee
                                                                          Convention because of valid reasons of fear of persecution in
                                                                          the Philippines. The applicant was active in the Communist
                                                                          Party of the Philippines and is a consultant for the negotiating
                                                                          panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in
                                                                          the peace negotiations with the government.
Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
against the Council of the European Union and the                         On 28 October 2002, the Council adopted decision 2002/
          Commission of the European Communities                          848/EC (1) and included the applicant on the list made pursuant
                                                                          to article 2 (3) of Regulation 2580/2001 on specific restrictive
                                                                          measures directed against certain persons and entities with a
                         (Case T-47/03)                                   view to combatting terrorism (2). The applicant was also
                                                                          included in the list adopted by decision 2002/974/EC (3) of
                                                                          12 December 2002. This last act is being contested in the
                        (2003/C 101/75)                                   present application.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In support of its application, the applicant invokes a violation
                                                                          of the obligation to state reasons, a patent error of judgment
                                                                          and a violation of the principle of sound administration. The
An action against the Council of the European Union and the               applicant indicates that he has not, as an alias, Armando
Commission of the European Communitie was brought before                  Liwanag and is not in charge of the New People’s Army (NPA).
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision
6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht, the Netherlands,            violates the principle of proportionality and the freedom of
represented by Mr Jan Fermon, Lawyer.                                     circulation of capital.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/42                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
The applicant also invokes the violation of several general                         Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/M.2283
principles of Community Law, such as the principles enshrined                       Schneider/Legrand);
in Articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on
Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto.
                                                                              —     annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of
                                                                                    13 December 2002 whereby the Commission closed Case
The applicant finally invokes the illegality of Regulation 2580/                    COMP/M.2283 Schneider/Legrand;
2001. According to the applicant, the Council had no
competence to adopt this regulation. The applicant claims that
Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty are not sufficient                  —     order production of the market studies carried out in
nor do they explicitly authorise the Council to issue such a                        November 2002 in the context of Case COMP/M.2283;
regulation. In this respect, the applicant also invokes a violation
of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal
                                                                              —     order the Commission to produce, on the assumption
certainty and a misuse of power by the Council.
                                                                                    that they exist, the minutes of the meeting of the
                                                                                    Commission at which the decision to close the case was
                                                                                    adopted and the decision delegating a power of signature
( 1) 2002/848/EC: Council Decision of 28 October 2002                               to the Director-General for Competition and authorising
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
                                                                                    him to sign the decision closing the case;
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/460/EC (OJ L 295, p. 12).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001                 —     order the Commission to reimburse the costs incurred in
     on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons              connection with the present actions.
     and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344, p. 7).
( 3) 2002/974/EC: Council Decision of 12 December 2002
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/848/EC (OJ L 337, p. 85).
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              On 10 October 2001, the Commission adopted a decision
                                                                              declaring Schneider’s public exchange offer in respect of all the
                                                                              shares in Legrand held by the public to be incompatible with
                                                                              the common market (1). As Schneider had closed its public
                                                                              offer before that decision was taken, the Commission adopted
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Schneider                               a further decision of 30 January 2002 ordering Schneider to
Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Com-                         divest itself of Legrand. The applicant challenged both these
                                munities                                      decisions in Cases T-301/01 and T-77/02. The Court of First
                                                                              Instance annulled the decisions by judgment of 22 October
                             (Case T-48/03)                                   2002.
                            (2003/C 101/76)
                                                                              On 4 December 2002, the Commission adopted a decision to
                                                                              initiate proceedings, after declaring that the concentration
                       (Language of the case: French)                         raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common
                                                                              market and opened the second phase investigation. The
                                                                              applicant subsequently informed the Commission that as it
                                                                              had divested itself of Legrand, on 10 December, the proceed-
                                                                              ings had become devoid of purpose. On 13 December 2002,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              the Commission closed the file (2).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Schneider
Electric S.A., whose registered office is at Rueil-Malmaison
(France), represented by Antoine Winckler and Marc Pittie,
lawyers.                                                                      In the present case, the applicant challenges the Commission
                                                                              decisions of 4 and 13 December 2002. The applicant states
                                                                              that the true effect of the decisions is to prohibit irremediably
                                                                              the union between Schneider and Legrand. In light of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   obligation to implement the divestiture decision in good faith
                                                                              and the fact that it was impossible to secure provision by
—      annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of                 financial investors of the amounts necessary for an additional
       4 December 2002 based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council                    period in excess of four months, the deadline for disposing of