CELEX: C1999/160/46
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-60/99: Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Townsend against the Commission of the European Communities

C 160/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.6.1999
Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Mukand Limited,                    — The adoption of the Definitive Regulation is vitiated by the
Isibars Limited, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and                         infringement of a fundamental procedural requirement
Viraj Impoexpo Limited against the Council of the Euro-                       pursuant to article 10.9 of the Basic Regulation and/or
                            pean Union                                        article 13.1 of the ASCM, thus making the Definitive
                                                                              Regulation void ab initio, having been initiated without due
                                                                              consultation with the Government of India.
                           (Case T-58/99)
                                                                         — The Definitive Regulation infringes articles 1.1, 2.1(a)(ii)
                          (1999/C 160/45)                                     and 15.2 of the Basic Regulation and/or articles 1.1(a)1(ii)
                                                                              and 19.3 of the ASCM, and/or the principle of pro-
                                                                              portionality, and/or makes a manifest error of assessment
                   (Language of the case: English)                            of the facts and procedure, by imposing countervailing
                                                                              duties in inappropriate amounts in respect of the Indian
                                                                              ‘Passbook Scheme’.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 February 1999 by Mukand Limited,                       (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on
Isibars Limited, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and Viraj                  protection against subsidised imports from countries not members
Impoexpo Limited, represented by Dr. Konstantinos Ada-                       of the European Community (OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1).
mantopoulos and Mr Jonathan Branton, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Meder-
nach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant applies to the Court for:
— a declaration, pursuant to articles 173 and 174 of the
    Treaty establishing the European Communities (‘the
    Treaty’), that Council Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of                 Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Townsend
    13 November 1998 imposing definitive countervailing                    against the Commission of the European Communities
    duties against imports of stainless steel bars originating in
    India (‘the Definitive Regulation’), adopted pursuant to
    the Basic Regulation (1) is null and void. The Definitive                                       (Case T-60/99)
    Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the
    European Communities on 14 November 1998 (OJ L 304,
    14.11.1998, p. 1),                                                                             (1999/C 160/46)
— an order that the costs of an occasioned by these proceed-
    ings be borne by the defendant.                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Town-
The applicants are fully integrated producer-exporters of                send, residing at Sterrebeek (Belgium), represented by Jean-
stainless steel bright bars and exported these bars to the               Noël Louis and Greta-Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
Community during the period of investigation relevant to the             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
Definitive Regulation.                                                   of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.
By the Definitive Regulation a definitive countervailing duty            The applicant claims that the Court should:
ranging from 14,4 to 25,5 % was imposed on imports of
stainless steel bars falling within CN Codes 7222 20 11, 7222            — annul the Commission’s decision refusing to cover the
20 21, 7222 20 31 and 7222 20 81 originating in India.                        applicant’s wife against the risks of sickness and accidents,
The applicants submit that the Definitive Regulation should be           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
annulled on the following grounds:
— The Definitive Regulation infringes articles 1.1, 8.1, 8.6,            Pleas in law and main arguments
    8.7 and 15.1 of the Basic Regulation and/or articles 15
    and 19 of the 1994 World Trade Organisation’s Agreement
    on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), and/or              The applicant, a grade A 4 official, works in the Secretariat of
    makes a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the            the Monetary Committee (DG II). His wife was seconded as a
    law, by imposing a countervailing duty in the absence of a           teacher to the European School in Brussels until 1995. Since
    correct and proper determination that imports of the                 then, she has been in receipt of an early retirement pension.
    product concerned have caused material injury to the                 She resides with the applicant in Brussels and is no longer in
    Community industry producing the like product.                       employment.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 160/25
According to the applicant’s wife, the fact that she does not             — in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the
reside in the United Kingdom means that she does not qualify                   applicant,
for cover against the risks of sickness and accidents, and is not
therefore eligible for benefits of the same nature and of the             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
same level by virtue of any other legal provision or regulations.
The applicant paid two invoices amounting to a total of BEF               Pleas in law and main arguments
122 268 by way of settlement of health care expenses incurred
in relation to his wife; he then sought reimbursement from the            The applicant, a publicly-owned shipping company, is the only
Brussels Settlements Office of the Sickness Insurance Scheme.             Italian company which provides a daily ferry service for cars,
The applicant was thereupon informed that, since his wife had             passengers and goods all the year round between Italy
been retired since 1995, she was deemed to be covered by her              and Greece. In particular, it provides that service on the
own sickness insurance scheme, to which claims should be                  Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route.
directed in the first instance, with the Community scheme
being involved only on a ‘top-up’ basis.
                                                                          The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission Decision
                                                                          of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
The applicant contests, in particular, the formal decision of the         of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 — Greek Ferry Boats), Article 1 of
Settlements Office refusing to provide primary cover for his              which finds that the applicant has joined in an agreement with
wife.                                                                     the principal Greek ferry operators between Italy and Greece,
                                                                          fixing the rates to be applied to lorries on the Patras-Bari and
In support of his action, he pleads:                                      Patras-Brindisi lines.
— infringement of article 72 (1) of the Staff Regulations,                In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
                                                                          following pleas in law:
— the unlawfulness of article 3 of the Rules on sickness
    insurance for officials of the European Communities,                  — infringement of article 190 of the Treaty so far as concerns
                                                                               the lack of reasoning in the definition of the relevant
— the unlawfulness of the decision of the Central Office                       market and the contradiction between the reasons and the
    laying down conditions in respect of income enabling                       operative part,
    spouses to qualify for supplementary reimbursement from
    the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme; and, lastly,                     — infringement of article 85 of the Treaty and article 11 of
                                                                               Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December
— a manifest error of assessment.                                              1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                               articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (1),
                                                                               in so far as the Commission charges the applicant with
                                                                               joining an alleged agreement incompatible with compe-
                                                                               tition where there is no evidence for such a charge,
                                                                          — misapplication of Article 85, as regards the evaluation of
                                                                               the evidence concerning its conduct, and in particular
Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Adriatica di Naviga-                         concerning the fact that it did not take part in any actions
zione against the Commission of the European Communi-                          contrary to the principles of the law on competition,
                                ties
                                                                          — breach of the principles of equity and equal treatment, in
                                                                               that the Commission excluded responsibility on the part
                          (Case T-61/99)                                       of several undertakings in a similar situation,
                         (1999/C 160/47)                                  — absence of any appreciable damage to trade between
                                                                               Member States,
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        — in the alternative, incorrect characterisation of any contra-
                                                                               vention committed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                In the further alternative, if the applicant were to be held to
European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Adriatica di                      have infringed article 85, as alleged, it claims infringement of
Navigazione SpA, represented by Umberto Ferraro, of the                   article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86, in that the
Genoa Bar, and Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, with an                   Commission imposed a fine and in any event made an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,            incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the
Hoss & Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.                               contravention, setting the fine at ECU 980 000.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 4.
— annul in whole or in part the contested decision in so far
    as it concerns the applicant,