CELEX: C1998/234/67
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 June 1998 by the International Potash Company (IPC) against the Council of the European Union (Case T-87/98)

25.7.98              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/35
major motor sport championships held under its name,                       Action brought on 5 June 1998 by the International
including the Formula One Championship and the FIA                          Potash Company (IPC) against the Council of the
world Rally Championship.                                                                   European Union
                                                                                             (Case T-87/98)
On 22 July 1994, the FIA notified its Statutes and                                            (98/C 234/67)
International Sporting Code to the Commission for
negative clearance or exemption under Article 85 of the
                                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
Treaty. On 5 September 1997, the applicant and Formula
One Administration Limited (FOA) notified for the same
purpose certain agreements concerning the FIA Formula                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
One World Championship. Another agreement between                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
FIA and International Sportsworld Communications                      Communities on 5 June 1998 by the International Potash
Limited (ISC) was also notified, relating to the                      Company (IPC), represented by Jean-FrancËois Bellis and
commercialisation of all sound recordings and moving                  Richard Luff, with an address for service in Luxembourg
picture images pertaining to certain FIA Championships,               at the Chambers of A. F. Brausch, 8 Rue Zithe.
other than the Formula One Championship. After having
received these notifications, the Director-General of
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
competition sent to the applicant a letter and annex
containing a preliminary statement of the objections to the
FIA's rules and to the agreement governing the Formula                Ð annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 449/
One Championship. On the same date similar letters were                    98 of 23 February 1998 amending Regulation (EEC)
sent by the Director-General to FOA and ISC. The events                    No 3068/92 in respect of definitive anti-dumping
with which this application is concerned involve an illegal                duties on imports of potassium chloride originating in
course of conduct by the Commission after the sending of                   Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
these three letters.                                                       p. 15) in so far as it imposes a specific duty on
                                                                           potassium chloride exported by the applicant; and
According to the applicants, the illegal course of conduct
of which complaint is made concerns:                                  Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð the making of a series of highly prejudicial public
    statements, directly attributed to the Commissioner for
    competition, and widely reported in the press,                    The applicant is a Russian company which exports
    expressing the Commissioner's view that the FIA is                potassium chloride produced in Russia and Belarus by the
    guilty of the gravest infringements of EC competition             following production companies which are its
    rules, even though the FIA had not been given the                 shareholders: Production Amalgamation Belaruski', PLC
    opportunity to be heard and the Commission had not                Silinit' and PLC Uralaki'.
    made a decision on the merits;
                                                                      The present application is directed against the
Ð the disclosure to the press, in breach of the obligations           regulation (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
    of professional secrecy and confidentiality, by a                 imports of potassium chloride originating in Belarus,
    member of the Commission's staff of (inter alia)                  Russia and Ukraine.
    the abovementioned letter to the FIA from the
    Director-General of competition, describing alleged               By imposing an anti-dumping equal to a fixed amount in
    infringements of the EC competition rules, together               ECU per tonne or to the difference between a minimum
    with an annex to the letter, giving guidance on                   price and the net, free-at-Community-frontier price per
    changes considered necessary on the FIA's part (and               tonne, whichever is the higher, the Community institutions
    the equivalent letters sent to FOA and ISC in so far as           have infringed Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
    they relate to the FIA's activities); and                         No 384/96 (2) which provides that the amount of the anti-
                                                                      dumping duty is not to exceed the margin of dumping
                                                                      established but should be less than the margin if such
Ð the continuing failure by the Commission and its                    lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the
    servants to take any effective action to rectify the              Community industry.
    situation or mitigate the highly damaging and
    prejudicial effects of these acts upon the FIA.
                                                                      By adopting a specific duty in addition to the variable
                                                                      duty, the Community institutions have also infringed
The applicant submits that this way of acting by the                  Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European
Commission is to be considered as an infringement of                  Community and the principle of proportionality since the
Articles 214 of the EC Treaty and 20(1) and (2) of                    measures go beyond what is necessary to obtain the
Regulation (EEC) 17/62, as well as of the principle of                objective pursued, namely the elimination of the dumping.
good administration.
                                                                      Finally, the Council has infringed Article 190 of the Treaty
                                                                      establishing the European Community by failing to
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/36              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
provide an appropriate steatement of reasons for the                 concerned manufactured and exported to the Community
adoption of an anti-dumping duty in this form, thereby               by the applicants.
denying the applicant its fundamental right to a fair
hearing.                                                             The applicants plead infringement of the following articles
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2):
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 449/98, OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
    p. 15.
(2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.                                       Ð Articles 2(8) and 2(9), in that the export price is
                                                                          determined as the price charged by Tata International
                                                                          to unrelated customers in the Community.
                                                                     Ð Article 2(10) in that, as an adjustment pursuant to
                                                                          Article 2(10)(i), a notional commission payment is
Action brought on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                        deducted from the export price.
Limited and Tata International Limited against the
                Council of the European Union                        Ð Article 18(3), in that, owing to continue reliance on
                        (Case T-88/98)                                    information which was known to be incorrect, any
                                                                          reasonably accurate finding was made impossible and,
                         (98/C 234/68)                                    finally,
                (Language of the case: English)                      Ð Article 20(4), because of failure to give adequate
                                                                          disclosure of the essential facts and considerations.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98, OJ L 50 of 20.2.1998,
Communities on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                          p. 1.
Limited and Tata International Limited, represented by               (2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.
Jean-FrancËois Bellis and Philippe De Baere, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Action brought on 8 June 1998 by National Association
Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98               of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) against the
     of 16 February 1998 imposing a definitive anti-                           Commission of the European Communities
     dumping duty on the imports of stainless steel                                          (Case T-89/98)
     fasteners and parts thereof originating in, inter alia,
     India, in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping                                 (98/C 234/69)
     duty on stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof
     manufactured and exported by the applicants; and                               (Language of the case: English)
Ð order the Council to bear the costs of these                       An action against the Commission of the European
     proceedings.                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators
                                                                     (NALOO), represented by Mark Cran QC and Mark
                                                                     Hoskins, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicants are limited companies established under               Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue Aldringen.
the laws of India. Kundan manufactures stainless steel
fasteners and sells them to Tata International, which,
being an export trading company, exports them to                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
independent importers within the Community.
                                                                     Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
By Article 1(2) of the contested regulation (1) a definitive              1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel fasteners                 submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of                 void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan                     against the CEGB; and
and Thailand has been imposed. On imports of the
products concerned exported by Kundan Industries Ltd./              Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
Tata Export Ltd., Mumbai' a definitive duty of 47.4 % has                 1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
been imposed.                                                             submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
                                                                          void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
The present application for annulment is directed against                 against British Coal; and
Article 1 of the contested regulation in so far as it imposes
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the products            Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.