CELEX: C2005/115/47
Language: en
Date: 2005-05-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-91/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

14.5.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 115/25
            
         Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-91/05)
   (2005/C 115/47)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               order the European Community to make good the damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the definitive anti-dumping measures prescribed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, by awarding the amounts of EUR 1 633 344,33 to the applicant for loss of profit for the period between June 2000 and December 2002, together with default interest on this amount of 8 % annually;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, to award a sum to the applicant by way of compensation for damage for loss of profit for the period between June 2000 and December 2002, to be assessed during the proceedings, following an interlocutory judgement of the Court, by agreement between the parties, and if no agreement is reached, by a final judgment of the Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that all costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the Council and the Commission.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an importer of seamless pipes and tubes in the Community and is affected by the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).
   The Commission also adopted Commission Decision 2003/382/EC 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) (2), and imposing a fine on several Community producers of seamless pipes and tubes.
   The applicant claims that, given the overlap in the product scope, the companies involved and the periods of investigation of the competition and anti-dumping proceedings, the anti-competitive conduct of the Community producers affected the injury and causality analysis of the anti-dumping proceedings. The applicant submits that the defendants failed to take into account the anti-competitive conduct in their assessment of the injury caused by the imports and therefore breached Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (3) and infringed their obligation of good and sound administration and due care and diligence. The applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and proportionality.
   The applicant states that the defendants have recognised in Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 of 16 July 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Russia and Romania (4) that the outcome of the analysis in the anti- dumping proceedings could have been different if the anti-competitive conduct had been considered.
   The applicant therefore claims damages for loss of profit suffered by it for the period between June 2000 and December 2002.
   
      (1)  OJ L 322, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 2003 L 140, p. 1.
   
      (3)  OJ L 56, p. 1.
   
      (4)  OJ L 246, p. 10.