CELEX: C2000/135/12
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-74/00 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA against the judgment delivered on 16 December 1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission of the European Communities

C 135/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                 Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA against
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of                    the judgment delivered on 16 December 1999 by the
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Neubau                       Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-Hohensinner OEG, Grund-                    First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-
verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundver-                 158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Com-
       kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg                                  mission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-72/00)
                                                                                              (Case C-74/00 P)
                        (2000/C 135/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                        (2000/C 135/12)
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 December
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
the appeal concerning Neubau Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Hohensinner OEG, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission
Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes                  of the European Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA,
Salzburg on the following question:                                    interveners) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be        European Communities on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to          represented by Giulio Macrı̀, Massimo Condinanzi and Franco
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land                Colussi, with an address for service at 36, Rue de Wiltz,
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Luxembourg.
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by         1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                  the European Communities in Case T-158/96 between
case?                                                                      Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA, inter-
                                                                           veners);
                                                                       2. By so doing, annul Commission Decision 96/617/ECSC (1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz,                 In the alternative:
Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grund-
         verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
                                                                       3. In the event that the Court of Justice should decide that it
                         (Case C-73/00)                                    cannot make a decision as to the status of the measure, set
                                                                           aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and refer
                        (2000/C 135/11)                                    the case to another sitting of the Court of First Instance,
                                                                           indicating the points of law upheld in the present appeal.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               In any event:
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz, Bürgermeister der
Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des            4. Make any other decisions it may deem necessary.
Landes Salzburg on the following question:
                                                                       5. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Pleas and main arguments
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the            The contested judgment should be set aside on the following
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the         grounds:
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?                                                                  — Failure to declare that the rights of the defence had
                                                                           been infringed by the administrative decision and the
                                                                           inconsistency of the decision at issue;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/7
— Breach of the prohibition on making decisions containing               The Appellants request the Court that:
    sanctions and of the principle of proportionality; absence/
    inadequacy/inconsistency of the reasons stated in that
    respect;                                                             — The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 Decem-
                                                                             ber 1999 be annulled in so far as it relates to Case
— Breach of rules on limitation periods. Absence and inad-                   T-33/98; and
    equacy of reasons in that respect;
                                                                         — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 (3) of 17 November 1997 be
— Breach of the prohibition on applying Community rules
                                                                             annulled to the extent requested by the First Appellant
    retroactively. Failure to state reasons in that respect;
                                                                             before the Court of First Instance; and
— Breach of the legal expectations held by Acciaierie di
    Bolzano that it would not have to repay the aid and of the           — The Council be ordered to pay the First Appellant’s costs
    principles of good faith and cooperation;                                both in the present appeal and also in Case T-33/98; and
— Breach of the rule of law which makes the incompatibility
    of ECSC aid dependent on changes in competitive con-                 — The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 Decem-
    ditions;                                                                 ber 1999 be annulled in so far as it relates to Case
                                                                             T-34/98; and
— Breach of the procedural rules governing inter partes
    proceedings, to the detriment of the interests of Falck and
    Acciaierie di Bolzano.                                               — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 be
                                                                             annulled to the extent requested by the Second Appellant
                                                                             before the Court of First Instance; and
(1) OJ 1996 L 274, p. 30.
                                                                         — The Council be ordered to pay the Second Appellant’s
                                                                             costs both in the present appeal and also in Case T-34/98.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Petrotub SA and
Republica SA against the judgment delivered on
15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber, Extended                         The First Appellant (Petrotub SA) will argue that the Court of
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-                 First Instance erred in law in that:
pean Communities in Joined Cases T-33/98 (1) between
Petrotub SA and the Council of the European Union,
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                     (a) it considered that the Council had stated adequate reasons
ties, and T-34/98 (2) between Republica SA and the Council                   notwithstanding the fact that the reasons given contained
of the European Union, supported by the Commission of                        no consideration as to whether the second symmetrical
                 the European Communities                                    method would not reflect the full degree of dumping being
                                                                             practised by the First Appellant; and/or
                        (Case C-76/00 P)
                                                                         (b) it considered, in the light of the matters referred to in
                        (2000/C 135/13)                                      paragraphs 108 to 113 of its judgment, that the Council
                                                                             had stated adequate reasons for use of the asymmetrical
                                                                             method; and/or
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
1999 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined            (c) in particular, it considered that the Council had stated
Cases T-33/98 between Petrotub SA and the Council of                         adequate reasons by referring, at least by implication, to
the European Union, supported by the Commission of the                       the fact that the asymmetrical method produced an
European Communities, and T-34/98 between Republica SA                       arithmetically greater result than the first symmetrical
and the Council of the European Union, supported by the                      method; and/or
Commission of the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 March 2000 by Petrotub SA and Republica SA, represented                (d) it failed to consider whether the reasons given in the
by Alfred L. Merckx of the Brussels Bar and Philip Bentley QC,               contested regulation constituted an explanation why the
barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, London, with an address for service              differences in export prices could not be taken into account
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Duro & Lorang, 3, rue de                    appropriately by the use of the first or the second
la Chapelle.                                                                 symmetrical methods.