CELEX: C2000/135/53
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-69/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Fiamm SpA and Fiamm Technologies Inc. against the Commission and the Council 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;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/31
— order the Community to pay the costs;                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
— adopt such further measures as might reasonably be found               — annul the decision of ‘the Steering Committee’, as con-
    necessary.                                                               tained in the memorandum of I. Boag of 28 January 2000,
                                                                             to assign the applicant to Brussels, to his DG of origin;
                                                                         — in the alternative, award to the applicant compensation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              for the non-material damage suffered and provisionally
                                                                             quantify the damage, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
The applicants in this case, who are battery manufacturers               — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
exporting to the USA, claim compensation for losses suffered
by them following the adoption by the USA of certain
commercial retaliation measures affecting their industry. On
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
9 September 1997, the Appeals Body of the World Trade
Organisation ruled that various measures laid down under the
Community scheme for importing bananas were contrary to                  The applicant, assigned to the Commission Delegation in
GATT 1994 and the GATS, and called upon the Community                    Romania, contests the decision to reassign him to headquarters
to bring its measures into line with the obligations under those         in Brussels, as part of the rotation exercise for 2000. He claims
trade agreements. Following that ruling, the USA subjected               that the decision in question is flawed in numerous ways, in
imports of stationary batteries to a duty equivalent to 100 %            that it:
of their value, with effect from 3 March 1999.
                                                                         — is not based on a statement of reasons;
In support of their claims, the applicants argue:                        — was taken in breach of the procedure applicable to
                                                                             decisions on rotation; and
— that the retaliatory measures in question were the direct
    consequence of the Community maintaining in force a                  — infringed his rights to be informed and to be heard
    system of rules which the WTO had already ruled unlawful;                beforehand.
— that in this case there has been a serious breach of a
    number of higher legal rules protecting individuals, such
    as the principle of ‘pacta sunt servanda’, the protection of
    legitimate expectations, legal certainty, the right to prop-
    erty, and the right to pursue an economic activity, and also
    of the principle of sound administration.
                                                                         Action brought on 31 March 2000 by Augusto Fichtner
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-75/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 135/55)
Action brought on 28 March 2000 by Steffen Skovmand                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-72/00)                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 31 March 2000 by Augusto Ficht-
                                                                         ner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar.
                        (2000/C 135/54)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        — annul as manifestly unfounded in fact and in law the
                                                                             Commission’s decision of 30 September 1999, removing
                                                                             him from his post without loss of pension rights;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               — order the Commission to pay compensation of not less
European Communities on 28 March 2000 by Steffen                             than EUR 50000 for material and non-material damage,
Skovmand, residing in Bucharest, represented by Georges                      the exact amount to be determined by the Court of First
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar.                                           Instance;