CELEX: C2000/135/52
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-68/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

C 135/30               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
— Manifest error of assessment.                                             out their own investigation whilst recognising that the
                                                                            EFTA Surveillance Authority was exclusively competent in
                                                                            this matter, contrary to Article 56 of the EEA Agreement.
                                                                            The documentary evidence obtained on the basis of an
                                                                            illegal decision should have been removed from the
                                                                            proceedings. Second, the Commission should not have
Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel                             used the documentary evidence upon which it relies as it
Corporation against the Commission of the European                          was obtained on behalf of the EFTA Surveillance Authority
                          Communities                                       which conducted an investigation, the purpose of which
                                                                            was different from that of the Commission proceeding;
                         (Case T-68/00)
                                                                        — in the alternative, the fine should be annulled or, at the
                        (2000/C 135/52)                                     very least, substantially reduced, inter alia, on the ground
                                                                            that the Commission made a factual error in computing
                                                                            the duration of the alleged infringement. The Commission
                                                                            claims that, in view of the EC-Japan voluntary restraint
                  (Language of the case: English)                           agreements, it takes account of the existence of an
                                                                            infringement only from 1990 onwards. The Commission,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   however, made a factual error in that the voluntary
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  restraint agreements expired only on 31 December 1990
European Communities on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel                       and thus covered the whole year of 1990.
Corporation (Tokyo), represented by Jean-François Bellis and
Kris Van Hove.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision of 8 December 1999
    relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
    (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes) in so far as it
    concerns the applicant;                                             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Fiamm SpA and
                                                                        Fiamm Technologies Inc. against the Commission and the
— annul or, at the very least, reduce the amount of the fine                       Council of the European Communities
    imposed on the applicant; and
                                                                                                  (Case T-69/00)
— order the Commission to bear the costs.
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
In the decision of 8 December 1999, the Commission imposed
a fine upon the applicant for its alleged participation in an
alleged agreement to refrain from selling seamless standard             An action against the Commission and the Council of the
OCTG and line pipe into Germany, Italy, France and the United           European Communities was brought before the Court of First
Kingdom, contrary to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. The                Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 2000 by
applicant puts forward the following three submissions:                 Fiamm SpA and Fiamm Technologies Inc., represented by Ivo
                                                                        Van Bael of the Brussels Bar, Andrea Cevese of the Vicenza Bar
— the Commission has failed to establish the existence of the           and Fabrizio di Gianni of the Rome Bar.
    alleged infringement as far as the applicant is concerned.
    The Commission’s analysis is flawed in that it did not take
    account of the vigorous competition from the applicant in           The applicants claim that the Court should:
    the UK offshore market and the high barriers to entry for
    Japanese supplies of the relevant products to the European          — award them: (i) damages against the Community of LIT
    onshore markets. Furthermore, the documentary evidence                  20835811027.16, or such other sum as the Court may
    relied upon by the Commission fails to support its finding              consider reasonable, final determination to be reserved for
    that the agreement existed and even less that the applicant             as long as the payment obligation lasts; (ii) interest at the
    was a party to it;                                                      Italian statutory rate on 96.5 % of the increased duties paid
                                                                            by the applicants to the US customs administration,
— the challenged decision is illegal as the Commission relied               from the date of actual payment by the applicants until
    on documentary evidence illegally obtained and used. First,             satisfaction; and (iii) interest at 8 % per annum, in accord-
    the decision of 25 November 1994, which authorised the                  ance with Community case-law, in the event of delay in
    on-site investigations of 1 and 2 December 1994, was                    payment of the sum demanded after the judgment award-
    illegal because it empowered Commission officials to carry              ing compensation;