CELEX: C2002/191/49
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-163/02: Action brought on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel and three other companies against the Commission of the European Communities

C 191/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.8.2002
—     in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group          Furthermore, the Commission acted in breach of primary and
      ‘alloy hot rolled flat products’ to 468 000 tonnes (2001           secondary Community legislation, the principle of equal
      import volume);                                                    treatment and the WTO Agreement.
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002
—     in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group              imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of
      ‘alloy hot rolled flat products’ to 118 916 tonnes.                    certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesellschaft
                                                                         Voss mbH Stahlhandel and three other companies against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants are importers of steel products affected by the                                     (Case T-163/02)
contested regulation. That regulation opened tariff quotas in
respect of the importation of 15 products into the Community.
Imports of those products in excess of the volume laid down                                        (2002/C 191/49)
by the relevant tariff quota will incur additional customs
duties.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
The applicants claim that the levels set for the free tariff quotas,     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in particular in respect of product group 4, cannot be                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
reconciled with the recitals in the preamble to the regulation.          European Communities on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesell-
For product group 4 alone there is a shortfall of 95 129 tonnes.         schaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel, Planegg (Germany), Jepsen
No reason is given for why the tariff quotas set in the                  Stahl GmbH, Nittendorf (Germany), LNS-Lothar Niemeyer
regulation do not comply with the regulation’s aims, as                  Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, Essen (Germany) and Metal
determined by the defendant itself, or with its own formula for          Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented
the calculation of those quotas.                                         by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
In addition, the applicants submit that the statement of reasons
for the regulation is also defective in that in the recitals in the      —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of
preamble there is no examination whatever of the interests of                  27 March 2002 (1);
all market operators affected by the regulation. No reasons are
given for why the purported aim of the regulation can be                 —     declare that the defendant must pay compensation to the
achieved only by the measures set out therein, why only the                    applicants for the present and future damage suffered by
interests of Community manufacturers are protected while the                   them as a result of the nullity of Regulation (EC) No 560/
interests of other market actors are not take into account, or                 2002 of 27 March 2002;
why the measures adopted in the regulation took effect
immediately and without any vacatio legis. All those deficiencies        —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
in the statement of reasons constitute a material breach
of procedural requirements which renders the contested
regulation void.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicants import steel products from countries outside
The applicants additionally claim that the regulation pursues            the European Communities. They object to Commission
different aims to those stated in the preamble and that the              Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 and claim that the conditions
Commission misused its discretionary powers. The failure to              for the introduction of provisional safeguard measures within
observe the purported aim of ‘maintaining the current import             the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of
level plus 10 % thereof ’ is particularly clear evidence that            22 December 1994 (2), as the basic regulation on which the
other aims are being pursued.                                            contested regulation is based, are not met.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 191/29
The applicants claim that the contested regulation is unlawful               The applicant claims that the Court should:
and infringes their rights. The Commission was not em-
powered to issue the regulation in its present form. In addition,
the required investigation procedure was not implemented                     —     annul Commission Decision 2002/229/EC of 13 Novem-
before, but at the same time as, or only after, the regulation                     ber 2001 on the aid scheme which the Sardinia Region
was issued.                                                                        (Italy) is planning to implement for the restructuring of
                                                                                   holdings in difficulty in the protected crops sector (OJ
                                                                                   2002 L 77, p. 29)
The applicants further submit that the regulation, and
Annexes 1.1 to 2.1 thereto, have a dubious factual basis. On                 —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
27 March 2002, the data listed in those annexes were, in fact,                     pay the costs.
not yet available to the Commission, because EUROSTAT had
not yet received all the information for 2001.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested regulation
is also unlawful on substantive grounds as the measures it                   Pleas in law and main arguments
lays down are disproportionate. The additional duties are
prohibitively high and, with the exception of developing
countries, the safeguard measures apply without distinction to
all countries.                                                               The decision which is at issue in the present case concerns a
                                                                             regional aid scheme for the restructuring of holdings in
                                                                             difficulty in the protected crops sector (flowers and vegetables)
Finally, the applicants claim that, given the circumstances, the             in Sardinia, adopted pursuant to Law No 4/98 of the Sardinian
provisional safeguard measures are incompatible with the rules               Region, which specifically concerns action to be taken in
laid down by the World Trade Organisation and GATT, and                      favour of small and medium-sized agricultural holdings in
infringe European Agreements concluded by the Council and                    difficulty.
the Commission with certain non-member countries.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002                  In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
    imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of
    certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on                —     breach or misapplication of Article 88(3) of the Treaty,
    the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC)                     the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
    No 518/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53).                                       restructuring firms in difficulty (1) and of the principle of
                                                                                   legitimate expectations. Moreover the time spent
                                                                                   assessing whether the aid was compatible with the
                                                                                   common market was unreasonably long.
                                                                             —     breach or misapplication of Article 87 of the Treaty and
                                                                                   of the abovementioned guidelines, lack of a proper
                                                                                   inquiry and inadequate statement of reasons.
Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma
della Sardegna against Commission of the European
                            Communities
                                                                             In that regard, the applicant points out that, although the
                                                                             Commission first became aware of the regional plan in
                          (Case T-171/02)                                    question on 15 January 1998, the decision finding the aid
                                                                             unlawful was not adopted until 13 November 2001. During
                                                                             that time, there was an exchange of correspondence between
                          (2002/C 191/50)                                    the defendant and the Italian authorities with the purpose of
                                                                             clarifying the scope and effects of the notified aid project.
                                                                             However, by the contested decision, the Commission has
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             firmly declared the project unlawful, furthermore, according
                                                                             to the applicant, by reference to aspects which were perfectly
                                                                             clear from the earliest exchanges.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2002 by the Regione                           The applicant further claims that the contested scheme is
Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Giacomo Aiello of                    compatible with the guidelines for rescuing and restructuring
the Avvocatura dello Stato.                                                  firms in difficulties and that there was no basis in the inquiry