CELEX: C1998/094/80
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 January 1998 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-16/98)

28.3.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/33
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  and 87/0296/B2, of which it has been unlawfully deprived.
                                                                     (1) Case C-199/91 Foyer Culturel du Sart-Tilman SARL v.
The applicant, a non-profit-making association governed                  Commission [1993] ECR I-2689.
by Belgian law, which has promoted a series of training              (2) OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1.
projects, states that the Belgian State submitted to the
European Social Fund, in its own name and on behalf of
the applicant itself, several applications for assistance
which gave rise to Commission decisions approving them
in six files bearing the numbers 84/3643/B6, 85/0077/B4,
85/0186/B6, 86/0274/B2, 87/0295/B2 and 87/0296/B2, as                Action brought on 16 January 1998 by Wirtschaftsver-
well as to the payment of advances. In December 1988 the             einigung Stahl and Others against the Commission of the
Belgian authorities informed the Commission that the                                    European Communities
applicant was being wound up and asked it to stop all                                        (Case T-16/98)
payments and inform it of the sums not yet disbursed in
respect of the approved files. The decisions to reduce                                        (98/C 94/80)
financial assistance finally taken by the Commission were
the subject of an action before the Court of Justice which,                         (Language of the case: German)
by judgment of 25 May 1993 (1), upheld in part the
applicant's claims.                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
The applicant claims that the Commission has still not               1998 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, of Düsseldorf, AG
adopted the measures to comply with that judgment and                der Dillinger Hüttenwerke, of Dillingen/Saar, EKO Stahl
that failure to act has given rise to the damage allegedly           GmbH, of Eisenhüttenstadt, Krupp Thyssen Nirosta
suffered by the applicant.                                           GmbH, of Bochum, Thyssen Krupp Stahl GmbH, of
                                                                     Duisburg, Preussag Stahl AG, of Salzgitter, Stahlwerke
                                                                     Bremen GmbH, of Bremen, and Thyssen Stahl AG, of
In support of its claims it states in particular that:               Duisburg,       represented     by    Jochim     Sedemund,
                                                                     Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                     Rue.
Ð under the legislation applicable at the time when the
    applications for assistance were submitted and
    subsequently approved by the Commission, between                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
    1984 and 1987, a promoter whose application for
    assistance is approved by the Commission is entitled             Ð annul Commission Decision 98/4/ECSC of 26
    to payment of an advance and, following a further                     November 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
    application accompanied by a detailed report certified                Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case IV/36.069
    by the Member State, to payment of the balance,                       Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl),
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Ð Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of
    17 October 1983 on the implementation of Decision                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    83/516/EEC (2), provides for the circumstances in
    which Fund assistance may be suspended, reduced or               By the contested decision the Commission prohibited the
    withdrawn and the amounts paid by way of an                      implementation of the information exchange agreement
    advance refunded,                                                notified by the applicants on 28 May 1996, on the ground
                                                                     of infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (1).
Ð the right of a promoter whose applications have been               The applicants submit that the Commission infringed the
    approved and which received an advance to receive                principle of legal certainty by conceptual and logical
    the outstanding amount may not be removed other                  inconsistency in the interpretation of Article 65 (1) of the
    than in observance of the prescribed procedures, and             ECSC Treaty, a provision imposing a monetary penalty
                                                                     whose interpretation is subject to the principle of
                                                                     certainty. Second, the Commission breached the principles
Ð in particular the right must be inferred of a promoter             of the burden of proof: according to the case-law, the
    to a decision by the Commission on the application               Commission is dispensed from the need to prove that
    for payment of the balance submitted by the Member               there has been an actual restriction of competition only if
    State of which it has the nationality.                           the agreement is either intended to restrict competition or
                                                                     else anti-competitive per se. There is no question of that,
                                                                     however, in the case of the present market information
Finally, the applicant states that, in the absence of any            system, since that is to be regarded from the point of view
proper investigation by the Fund regarding its claims, it            of competition law as either neutral or even promoting
cannot but set its damage at the level of the amount of the          competition. The contested decision does not even attempt
balance of the assistance in files 85/0186/B6, 87/0295/B2            to carry out a corresponding empirical examination.
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/34               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
Third, the Commission made incorrect observations on                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
market transparency. An independent expert report
annexed to the application for negative certification,                 Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained
which showed that competition is promoted by increased                     in the defendant's letter of 14 October 1997 refusing
transparency, was ignored by the Commission. That                          the applicant's request for repayment of the
constitutes a serious defect in the determination of the                   Community tax paid by the applicant in respect of the
facts, which affected the outcome of the decision.                         period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
                                                                           inclusive,
Fourth, in the applicants' submission, Article 60 of the
ECSC Treaty pursues a system of complete transparency in               Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void the decision
the field of prices and conditions of sale. If, according to               of the European Parliament to subject freelance
the Court of Justice, that applies to market transparency                  interpreters working for it to Community tax,
in the field of prices, then market transparency must all                  alternatively rule that that decision may not be relied
the more be permitted with respect to quantities delivered.                upon against the applicant for the purposes of
                                                                           deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Fifth, the fact that the Commission did not investigate the                1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
market shares with the means usually available to it, as                   from the income earned by her from her activities as a
described in its Notice on the definition of relevant                     freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
market' (2), constitutes a serious defect in the
determination of the facts.                                            Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void Article 8 of
                                                                           the agreement with the AIIC, alternatively rule that
Sixth, the applicants submit that the Commission                           that article may not be relied upon against the
infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the ECSC                   applicant for the purposes of deducting, in respect of
Treaty by informing the Government of the United States                    the period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
of America that it had no objections to the exchange of                    inclusive, Community tax from the income earned by
ECSC questionnaire 2Ð72. The applicants had not made                       her from her activities as a freelance interpreter
exchange of that questionnaire the subject of their                        working for the defendant,
notification, and according to the case-law business secrets
of the undertakings concerned must, on the basis of the                Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
general principle of which the procedural rules of                         by the applicant during the period from 1 January
competition law are an expression, receive especially                      1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, currently
extensive protection, which also means that the                            estimated by the applicant as amounting to ECU
undertakings concerned must be informed beforehand in                      17 309, together with interest at the annual rate of
an adequately reasoned decision, in order thus to be given                 8 % or at the legal rate applicable,
the opportunity to seek judicial protection before the
                                                                       Ð by way of subsidiary relief:
information is passed on.
                                                                           order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
Finally, the contested decision infringes the obligation to
                                                                           the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
state reasons under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty, since it
                                                                           642 199, together with such further damage as may be
lacks a convincing statement of reasons on a number of
                                                                           specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
points.
                                                                           tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
                                                                           period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
(1) OJ L 1, 3.1.1998, p. 10.
                                                                           inclusive during which the defendant retained
(2) OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, p. 5, at point 33 et seq.
                                                                           Community tax deducted from the applicant's income,
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 14 January 1998 by F against the                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                     European Parliament                               Case T-2/98.
                         (Case T-17/98)
                          (98/C 94/81)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                  Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    against the European Parliament
Communities on 14 January 1998 by F, residing in                                               (Case T-18/98)
Brussels, represented by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a                                        (98/C 94/82)
right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands), The Hague, and                                    (Language of the case: German)
L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                   An action against the European Parliament was brought
31 Grand-Rue.                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European