CELEX: C2002/156/63
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-104/02: Action brought on 8 April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères against the Commission of the European Communities

29.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 156/33
Therefore, the applicant puts forward the same pleas and                   The contested Decision contains, according to the applicant,
arguments as in Case T-100/02, which are again the same as                 several errors of assessment and errors in law. Firstly, the
those put forward in Case T-99/02.                                         Commission erred in concluding that the merchant supply of
                                                                           cumene to one of the applicant’s production sites does
                                                                           not constitute a separate economic market. Secondly, the
                                                                           Commission failed to consider whether a dominant position
(1) Under the operation examined by the Commission in this case,           would be created in this market and failed to conclude that
    Deutsche Shell would acquire sole control of the undertaking           a dominant position had been created. Alternatively, the
    DEA Mineraloel. The decision in case no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/           Commission failed to define a wider relevant market for the
    DEA is also contested by this applicant in Case T-100/02.              sale of cumene and failed to analyse the creation of a dominant
                                                                           position in such a market.
                                                                           The applicant also puts forward a plea concerning the
                                                                           infringement of an essential procedural requirement, the
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol GmbH                        misuse of powers and the violation of the principle of sound
& Co KG against the Commission of the European                             administration. According to the applicant, the Commission
                           Communities                                     should have requested information from third parties in
                                                                           relation to the sale of cumene by BP and Veba Oel.
                          (Case T-103/02)
                          (2002/C 156/62)                                  Finally, the applicant claims that there was a lack of reasoning
                                                                           in the contested Decision since the Commission failed to
                                                                           analyse the supply of merchant cumene by BP and Veba Oel
                   (Language of the case: English)                         and failed to address the issues raised in the present application.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol
GmbH & Co KG, represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark
Clough QC and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp,
Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 8 April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères
—     annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
      Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON insofar as
      it relates implicitly to the merchant supply of cumene;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (Case T-104/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2002/C 156/63)
The applicant is a significant purchaser of a petrochemical                                   (Language of the case: French)
product called cumene from BP and Veba Oel AG.
The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission
declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The grounds of the present application relate to the omission of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission to consider, in this Decision, the competition              European Communities on April 2002 by SFT Gondrand
issues raised by the combination of BP and Veba Oel, so far as             Frères of Paris, represented by Mireille Famchon, lawyer, with
their supply of merchant cumene is concerned.                              an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/34               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Finally, the applicant argues that it cannot be accused of
                                                                        deception and that it has not acted with manifest negligence.
—     annul Decision REM 06/01 of 14 January 2002 and allow
      a rebate of the anti-dumping duties imposed to SFT
      Gondrand Frères.                                                  (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
                                                                            imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea
                                                                            ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,
                                                                            exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-
                                                                            lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1994 L 350,
                                                                            p. 20).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an authorised customs agent. In 1997 it
released for circulation three cargo loads of urea ammonium             Action brought on 15 April 2002 by Grupo El Prado-
nitrate solution from Poland. When making the customs                   Cervera, S.L. against Office for Harmonisation in the
declaration the applicant applied for an exemption from anti-                                      Internal Market
dumping duty which applies to imports of that product from
Poland. Following checks, the French customs authorities took
the view that anti-dumping duty was due and demanded                                               (Case T-117/02)
payment of the customs duty from the applicant.
                                                                                                   (2002/C 156/64)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant then requested a rebate of the anti-dumping
duty and the corresponding VAT. That request was sent by the
French authorities to the Commission, which refused a rebate
of the anti-dumping duties. The applicant is challenging that           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
decision in this case.                                                  Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 15 April 2002 by Grupo El Prado-
                                                                        Cervera, S.L., whose registered office is at Valencia (Spain),
                                                                        represented by Patricia Koch Moreno.
The applicant claims that anti-dumping duties are not payable,
as a result of EC Regulation No 3319/94 (1). The applicant              The applicant claims that the Court should:
states that the goods were invoiced directly by the Polish
company, Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy, to a French company,
Evertrade. The price of the goods was, furthermore, higher              —     declare the Decision of 12 February 2002 of the First
than the minimum import price. In those circumstances the                     Board of Appeal of the OHIM rejecting the opposition
applicant claims that to subject the contested imports to anti-               filed against Community trade mark application No
dumping duties is unjustified.                                                1021229, CHUFAFIT, in Classes 29 and 31 incompatible
                                                                              with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                              Community Trade Mark and annul that decision;
                                                                        —     declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between
The applicant also claims that it was justifiable for the duties              Community trade mark application No 1021229, CHU-
to be subject to a rebate in this case in the light of one                    FAFIT, in classes 29 and 31, and Spanish trade mark
particular factor. According to the applicant, the idea is                    No 1778419, CHUFI, registered in respect of goods in
to prevent dumping by means of import routes involving                        Class 29, and Spanish trade mark No 2063328, CHUFI,
intermediate companies in third countries. That danger has                    registered in respect of goods in Class 31;
been averted here, since the first buyer from the Polish exporter
was a French company. Furthermore, the regulation in question           —     refuse Community trade mark application No 1021229,
poses difficulties of interpretation. The applicant claims that               CHUFAFIT, in Classes 29 and 31; and, finally,
the French authorities interpreted it in the same way as the
applicant. It also adds that its omission is a purely formal one
and has not had any real effect on the proper functioning of            —     order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener to
the customs system.                                                           pay the costs of the proceedings.