CELEX: C1999/086/43
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG against the Council of the European Union (Case T-7/99)

27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/23
It claims that the Commission failed to appreciate that the             duties paid by the applicant prior to the adoption of
end product produced by the applicant, namely                           that regulation under the powers vested in the Council
hammer-forged reinforcement steel in rings as a cold-form               by the EC Treaty; and
end product of the semi-finished product, wire rod, is not
one of the products falling within Annex 1 (definition of
the expressions coal and steel') of the ECSC Treaty.               Ð order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses
Under Code 4400 of Annex I, only wire rod' is included                 of the procedure.
as a product of the hot finishing stage of the rolling mill.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Hammer-forged reinforcement steel in rings' falls within
the sweep-up provisions for particular areas of steel
production which do not fall within the ECSC Treaty;
those provisions expressly specify the drawing' of wire           In 1993 the applicant, a producer of leather handbags,
rod'.                                                               reached an agreement with Lucci Creation Limited, a
                                                                    Hong Kong-based company with manufacturing facilities
                                                                    in China, to produce its leather handbags. These products
In applying the ECSC Treaty to aid for activities not               were manufactured using leather and other materials
covered by the Treaty (Article 81 of the ECSC Treaty read           which the company purchased from European suppliers.
together with Annex I) the Commission, in the contested
decision, not only interpreted the Treaty but amended it
without complying with the requisite procedures of Article          By Regulation (EC) No 209/97 (1) the Commission
81(2) or Article 95(1) of the ECSC Treaty). Furthermore,            imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into
the Commission misused its powers in abusing its                    the Community of handbags originating in the People's
authority to apply Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty and the          Republic of China. Definitive anti-dumping duties were
Steel Aid Code in that it extended the latter to production         subsequently imposed under Council Regulation (EC)
activities falling outside the scope of Annex I to Article 81       No 1567/97 (2).
of the ECSC Treaty without following the procedure
under the second paragraph of Article 81 or Article 95.
                                                                    On 5 November 1998, the contested Council Regulation
                                                                    (EC) No 2380/98 (3) was adopted. This regulation
Finally, the applicant claims that the decision was                 confirmed that no dumping was found on the transactions
unlawfully made restroactive and that the principles of             between the applicant and Lucci Creation Limited and
the protection of legitimate expectations and non-                  that, as a result, both were entitled to an individual
discrimination were infringed.                                      dumping margin of 0,0 %.
                                                                    The request for retroactive effect for these rates of
                                                                    anti-dumping duty was rejected on two grounds:
Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG
         against the Council of the European Union                  Ð the prospective nature of measures adopted further to
                                                                        review investigations, and
                         (Case T-7/99)
                        (1999/C 86/43)
                                                                    Ð the unwarranted bonus' that exporting producers
                                                                        cooperating in the review would receive despite
                (Language of the case: English)                         non-cooperation in the initial investigation.
An action against the Council of the European Union was             Between 3 August 1997 and 6 November 1998 the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          applicant paid a total of DEM 1 456 452 in anti-dumping
Communities on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG,                  duties.
represented by Robert M. MacLean, Solicitor, of Cameron
McKenna and Paul McGarry, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                  The applicant submits that the contested regulation should
                                                                    be annulled in so far as it fails to grant retroactive effect
                                                                    and reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties paid by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         applicant on the following grounds:
Ð partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98                Ð The Council infringed a rule of law relating to the
     on the grounds that the Council failed to grant                    application of the EC Treaty by infringing
     retrospective reimbursement of the anti-dumping                    fundamental principles and express provisions of
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/24                EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
    Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (4) as well as the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    relevant provisions of the WTO Anti-Dumping
    Agreement.
                                                                   The Commission accuses the applicants, with other
                                                                   producers of pre-insulated district heating pipes, of
                                                                   participating in a system of agreements in restraint of
Ð The Council failed to respect the principle of                   competition during the period from October 1991 until at
    legitimate expectation.                                        least March or April 1996. The applicants are alleged,
                                                                   inter alia, to have shared the market, agreed prices and
                                                                   manipulated supplies, and to have engaged in concerted
                                                                   practices intended to damage competitors not participating
Ð The Council infringed the principle of proportionallity.         in the cartel.
(1) OJ L  33, 4.2.1997, p. 11.                                     A fine of ECU 4 950 000            was    imposed   on   the
(2) OJ L  208, 2.8.1997, p. 31.                                    Henss/Isoplus Gruppe'.
(3) OJ L  296, 5.11.1998, p. 1.
(4) OJ L  56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
                                                                   The applicants argue that the Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                   GmbH Ð Stille Gesellschaft' referred to in the decision
                                                                   does not have legal personality, is not capable of being a
                                                                   party and cannot therefore properly be an adressee under
                                                                   Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty or a party in a proceeding
                                                                   under Regulation No 17/62. They argue further that the
                                                                   loose Gruppe Henns/Isoplus' is a structure without legal
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by HFB Holding für               personality and thus also not capable of being a party,
Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co.                with the result that there has been a breach of the
KG and Others against the Commission of the European               essential procedural requirements laid down by Regulation
                           Communities                             No 17/62.
                          (Case T-9/99)
                                                                   The applicants also plead:
                         (1999/C 86/44)
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                       Articles 3 and 15 of Regulation No 17/62;
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   Ð infringement of the right to a proper hearing and the
                                                                       duty to state reasons, since the statement of objections
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       was never served;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
1999 by HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-             Ð infringement of Article 6(2) of the European
gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Rosenheim (Germany) and                     Convention on Human Rights and the principle of
four Others, represented by Peter Krömer and Friedrich                 mens rea under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62;
Nusterer, Rechtsanwälte, St Pölten (Austria).
                                                                   Ð infringement of Commission Decision 94/810/ECSC,
                                                                       EC of 12 December 1994 on the terms of reference of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            hearing officers in competition procedures before the
                                                                       Commission (OJ 1994 L 330, p. 67), and Regulation
                                                                       No 99/63/EEC;
1. annul the Commission's decision of 21 October 1998
    concerning a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             Ð infringement of the formal requirements of
    Treaty (Case IV/35.691/E-4, Fernwärmetechnik-Kar-                  Articles 3(3) and 4 of Regulation No 99/63/EEC in
    tell), as amended by the Commission's corrective                   conjunction with Article 19 of Regulation No 17/62
    decision of 6 November 1998 (Case IV/35.691 Ð                      and Articles 6 and 7 of Commission Decision
    Vorisolierte Rohre);                                               94/810/ECSC, EC;
                                                                   Ð infringement      of further defence rights, such as
2. reduce the fines imposed on the applicants (or, as the              insufficiently  long periods for the making of
    case may be, the Gruppe Henns/Isoplus') by the above              observations   and failure to provide translation of
    decision;                                                          documents in   foreign languages;
                                                                   Ð infringement of the duty to state reasons under
3. order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Article 190 of the EC Treaty.