CELEX: C1998/151/23
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-47/98)

C 151/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.5.98
The applicant also accuses the Commission of breaching              Instance on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA,
the terms of the decisions granting aid, and the principles         represented by Luca G. Radicato di Brozolo, of the Milan
of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
It states that the defendant abandoned its clear position of        chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
19 April 1996 by virtue of a decision taken almost two
years after submission of the financial report and that it
must therefore be concluded that there was a change of
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
attitude, at variance with instructions given earlier, and
                                                                    should:
also a lack of clear indications concerning chargeable
expenditure and the procedure to be followed for
obtaining prior confirmation as to whether expenditure
was chargeable. The applicant draws particular attention            Ð annul the Commission Decision of 21 January 1998
to the uncertainty cast upon its status as a network. In                 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
that connection, the applicant states that, in the past, the             ECSC Treaty (Case IV/35.814 Extra lega),
CEMR has managed numerous projects in conjunction
with the Commission, in which importance was always
attached to the contribution made by its network, upon
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul that Decision in so far as it
which the defendant was able to rely to ensure the success
                                                                         orders the applicant (a) to pay a fine (Article 2) and
of the project. Similarly, the Commission did not comply
                                                                         (b) to bring the infringement to an end (Article 4),
with the terms of the aid decisions concerning particular
headings and rates of joint financing.
                                                                    Ð in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on
                                                                         AST,
Moreover, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission's
conduct,       consisting     in   sending      contradictory
communications at very short intervals, without giving
any clarification of them, despite various requests to that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
effect, is indicative of manifest disfunction within the
Commission which is not compatible with the principle of
sound administration.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of
proportionality, in that the Commission states that staff           The decision at issue in this case is the same as the one in
and operational expenses cannot be taken into account               Case T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen Stainless v. Commission. The
since there is no specific management structure for the             pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
ECOS project in respect of the relevant headings. In its            similar to those put forward in the latter case. In support
view, the defendant's position on that point is liable to           of its claims, the applicant, an Italian producer of stainless
increase the costs to be shared amongst the local                   steel, alleges infringement of the ECSC Treaty and of
authorities making up its network.                                  numerous rules and of substantive principles concerning
                                                                    its application, and also acts ultra vires and infringements
                                                                    of essential procedural requirements. It is contended that
                                                                    the contested Decision does not clearly identify the
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of           infringement imputed to the undertakings. In that
equal treatment as far as it is concerned.                          connection, the defendant is accused of giving an incorrect
                                                                    and confused account and assessment of the facts and
                                                                    contradictory reasoning which is not set out with the
                                                                    required degree of detail.
                                                                    As regards the fine imposed, the applicant contends that
Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali                  the conditions for its imposition were not fulfilled.
Terni SpA against the Commission of the European                    Moreover, its amount was determined in breach of
                          Communities                               the relevant principles, including the principle of
                                                                    proportionality.
                        (Case T-47/98)
                         (98/C 151/23)
                                                                    In its third plea in law, the applicant alleges that the
                                                                    requirement that the infringement be brought to an end,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     contained in Article 4 of the Decision, is lacking in its
                                                                    subject-matter, is imprecise and has no legal basis.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First