CELEX: C1998/137/45
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acerinox SA against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-48/98)

C 137/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant points out that, as a result of interpreting in
                                                                        this way Article 17 of the electoral rules, List No 5 has
1. annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 of                       come to have only Brussels-based representatives among
     12 December 1997 on the issuing of import licences                 those elected from it, while the candidate who had
     for rice falling within CN code 1006 and originating               received the greatest number of individual votes was
     in the overseas countries and territories under the                excluded from those elected. The applicant claims that
     specific measures introduced by Regulation (EC)                    such a final result is paradoxical and legally aberrant.
     No 2352/97 (1),                                                    Such a result conflicts directly with the basic rule which
                                                                        governs any kind of democratic ballot, namely that those
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.                   candidates who obtain the greatest number of votes win
                                                                        and are appointed according to the number of votes
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     obtained.
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to                    In support of her application the applicant claims that the
those in Case T-32/98 (2).                                              contested decisions should be annulled:
(1) OJ L 343, 13.12.1997, p. 17.
                                                                        Ð inasmuch as they infringe Articles 6, 17 and 18 of the
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                            electoral rules,
                                                                        Ð in the alternative, inasmuch as those rules are in
                                                                            breach of the provisions of Annex II to the Staff
                                                                            Regulations,
Action brought on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola
         Sabbatucci against the European Parliament                     Ð inasmuch as they are contrary to the principles
                         (Case T-42/98)                                     common to all the Member States in matters of
                                                                            electoral law, according to which the first successful
                          (98/C 137/44)                                     candidate from the list which has obtained the greatest
                                                                            number of votes must be elected.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                   The applicant states in particular that to read
before the Court of First Instance of the European                      Article 17(5)(b) in the way that the Committee of Tellers
Communities on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola                              has done runs counter to the system of proportional
Sabbatucci, represented by Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea                 distribution of seats laid down in Article 17(1) and (2)
Cevese, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service at              thereof. However, should the Court consider that the only
the Chambers of Morresi Law Office, 67, avenue des                      possible interpretation of Article 17 of the electoral rules
Nerviens, Brussels.                                                     is that adopted in the contested decisions, the applicant
                                                                        also claims that that provision and Article 6(4) are
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             contrary to Annex II to the Staff Regulations. The absence
                                                                        in that Annex of any mention of the obligation to ensure
Ð annul the notice of 27 January 1998 of the Committee                  that the staff of a particular seat are represented where
     of Tellers and their reply of 17 February 1998                     there is only a single committee means, in the view of the
     inasmuch as they exclude the applicant from the                    applicant, that where such representation is guaranteed by
     candidates elected to the Staff Committee,                         the electoral rules, it should be established by way of
                                                                        criteria such as not to upset the choice expressed by the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs of these                         electorate with its vote.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official in Category B at the European
Parliament, challenges her exclusion from the Staff                     Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acerinox SA
Committee of the European Parliament. The applicant                          against Commission of the European Communities
observes that she submitted her candidature in List No 5                                       (Case T-48/98)
for the to the second-round elections held in January 1998
and obtained the greatest number of votes of those on the                                       (98/C 137/45)
list. According to the information provided by the
Committee of Tellers following the allocation of seats on                              (Language of the case: English)
the basis of the number of individual votes, one of the
conditions with regard to the composition of the                        An action against the Commission of the European
committee laid down in Article 17(5)(b) of the                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
Parliament's electoral rules requiring the presence of a                Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1998
certain number of members assigned to Brussels had not                  by Acerinox SA, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele
been met. Thus the applicant was replaced by the Brussels               and Denis Waelbroeck with an address for service in
representative, who had not been elected, who had the                   Luxembourg at the Offices of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
greatest number of votes in List No 5.                                  Matrhias Hardt.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (alloy surcharge) in so
                                                                            far as it concerns the applicant,
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January
    1998 in Case IV/35.814 (Alloy surcharge) in so far as               Ð in the alternative, reduce the fine,
    it is addressed to it,
                                                                        Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð alternatively, reduce substantially the fine imposed on
    it,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        For some time a number of producers of stainless steel
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     have applied a common mark-up, which is known as the
                                                                        alloy surcharge. That price supplement is calculated on the
By the contested decision the Commission found that the                 basis of the price of the components of the alloy.
applicant, a Spanish public company active in the stainless
steel sector, together with other companies manufacturing               According to the Commission, in its decision of 21 January
these products, had infringed Article 65(1) of the ECSC                 1998, there is an agreement between the producers to that
Treaty by jointly agreeing in December 1993 to modify                   effect. The cartel restricts competition to a substantial
and apply in concert the reference values of the                        extent, since the undertakings involved produce 90 % of
calculation formula of alloy surcharges, a practice which,              all stainless steel. According to the Commission, those
the Commission claimed, had as its object and effect, the               agreements constitute an infringement of Article 65 of the
restriction and distortion of competition within the                    ECSC Treaty.
common market.
                                                                        The applicant challenges the Commission's decision on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are, in principle, the              grounds that:
same as those raised in Cases T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen
Nirosta GmbH and T-47/98 Acciai Speciali Terni and                      Ð even without the agreements all producers would have
T-49/98 ALZ NV, concerning the other companies                              taken steps to adapt prices to the economic situation,
forming the alleged cartel (1).
                                                                        Ð the Commission overestimated the impact of the alloy
The applicant further claims not to have participated in
                                                                            surcharge on prices and failed to take account of the
any agreement or concerted practice within the meaning
                                                                            circumstances of each individual undertaking
of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. If the applicant could be
                                                                            concerned,
regarded as having participated in such agreement or
concerted practice, quod non, the infringement can, at
most, be regarded as sporadic and ephemeral and not as                  Ð the Commission imposed similar fines on all the
having the duration alleged by the Commission. Finally,                     undertakings concerned, without taking account of the
the fines imposed on the applicant are in any event                         considerable differences between the sizes of the
disproportionate and discriminatory.                                        undertakings,
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                          Ð the Commission infringed the rights of the defence.
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by ALZ NV against                       Action brought on 20 March 1998 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
          Commission of the European Communities                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-49/98)                                                         (Case T-50/98)
                          (98/C 137/46)                                                          (98/C 137/47)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1998                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
by ALZ NV, established in Genk, Belgium, represented by                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.                 (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
Loesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, 11, rue Goethe.                          Luxembourg Bar, 180, route de Longwy.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998)68 final of                    Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
    21 January 1998 concerning a procedure pursuant to                      him to Grade A 4 in the 1997 promotions procedure,