CELEX: C1998/113/43
Language: en
Date: 1998-04-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Amedeo Musso against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-23/98)

11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/17
2. the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                    requested the Commission to reimburse the fines paid by
                                                                   them. By letter of 4 October 1995, the Commission
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.                                            refused on the ground that the decision imposing the fines
(2) OJ L 95, 10.4.1997, p. 19.                                     was still standing with regard to the applicants. The
                                                                   applicants applied to the Court of First Instance for the
                                                                   annulment of the Commission's decision of refusal (1). By
                                                                   judgment of 10 July 1997 the Court of First Instance
                                                                   annulled that decision.
Action brought on 14 November 1997 by AssiDöman
                                                                   The applicants state that the Court of First Instance held
Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp
                                                                   that, pursuant to Article 176 of the Treaty, the
companies against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Commission should have reviewed, in the light of the
                          Communities
                                                                   wood pulp judgment, the lawfulness of the wood pulp
                       (Case T-292/97)                             Decision in so far as it applies to the Swedish addressees
                         (98/C 113/42)                             and, if it concluded that there was no lawful basis for the
                                                                   fines imposed on them, it would be required, by virtue of
                                                                   the rule of law and pursuant to the principle of proper
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   administration, to repay the fines.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  By letter of 12 August 1997, the applicants called on the
Instance of the European Communities on 14 November                Commission to take a position on the obligations arising
1997 by AssiDöman Kraft Products AB and six other                  out of the judgment of 10 July 1997 within two months of
Swedish wood pulp companies, represented by John                   receipt of that letter. No response of any kind was
Pheasant, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and            received from the Commission.
Wales, of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Loesch & Wolter,
11 rue Goethe, Luxembourg.                                         The applicants maintain that the Commission, though
                                                                   called on to act, has failed to comply with the obligations
                                                                   arising out of the judgment of 10 July 1997, contrary to
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                   Article 176 of the Treaty and in defiance of the principle
                                                                   of proper administration and of the rule of law.
Ð declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
    in breach of Article 176 of that Treaty, the
    Commission has failed to take the necessary measures           (1) Case T-227/95 (OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 16).
    to comply with the Court's judgment of 10 July 1997,
Ð order, pursuant to Article 176 of the Treaty and
    without prejudice to the rights of the applicants under
    the second paragraph of Article 215 thereof, the
    Commission to take the necessary measures to comply            Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Amedeo Musso
    with the judgment of 10 July 1997,                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-23/98)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                           (98/C 113/43)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicants, or their predecessors in title, were among
the addressees of Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of
19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding pursuant to              An action against the Commission of the European
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/29.725 Ð Wood pulp) by             Communities was brought before the Court of First
which the Commission imposed fines on 43 of the                    Instance of the European Communities on 26 January
addressees of the Decision. The applicants, who had never          1998 by Amedeo Musso, represented by Vincenzo Cinque
accepted the allegations of infringement, did not bring an         and Luciana Candriella, of the Udine Bar, 34 via
action for annulment of the Decision and paid the fines to         Morpurgo, Udine.
the Commission. On application by other addressees of
the Decision, the Court of Justice, by judgment of
31 March 1993 in Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125/85 to C-129/
85, A. Ahlström Oy v. Commission, annulled, inter alia,            Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
two of the key findings of infringement with the result                 30 July 1997,
that the Commission was required to repay to the
producers who had been parties to those proceedings the
fines imposed on the basis of those findings of                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
infringement. Pursuant to that judgment, the applicants                 inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
 ---pagebreak--- C 113/18              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with          Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid                 against the Council of the European Union
     was paid,                                                                             (Case T-33/98)
                                                                                            (98/C 113/45)
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                   represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
relied on Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia v.
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
Commission (1).
                                                                   4, boulevard Royal.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                       97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Netherlands              Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
Antilles against the Commission of the European                        97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
                          Communities
                        (Case T-32/98)                             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                         (98/C 113/44)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   Following a complaint lodged by the Defence Committee
                                                                   of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Union, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  investigation in respect of imports into the Community of
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
1998 by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F.          originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and
Bos and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an              the Slovak Republic. At the same time, the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               announced the initiation of an interim review of Council
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.                                    Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 in respect of imports of
                                                                   certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
                                                                   originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Croatia. The anti-dumping proceeding so initiated
                                                                   followed the normal course and on its conclusion the
                                                                   Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of
Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2532/97 of                   17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping
     27 November 1997 introducing specific measures in             duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of
     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas        iron and non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
     countries and territories (1),                                Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak
                                                                   Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and
                                                                   terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.               originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under Romanian
                                                                   law, challenges the abovementioned Regulation, on the
                                                                   grounds that the Community institutions:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
those in Case T-163/97 (2) and T-179/97 (3).
                                                                   Ð have acted in breach of Article 22 of the basic
                                                                       anti-dumping Regulation (hereinafter the Basic
(1) OJ L 326, 28.11.1997, p. 21.
(2) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 31.
                                                                       Regulation') and also Article 34 of the Association
(3) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, p. 25.                                        Agreement with Romania, by imposing anti-dumping
                                                                       duties without referring the matter to the Association
                                                                       Council, and the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                       contested Regulation is inadequate in this respect,