CELEX: C1997/040/52
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Società Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-166/96)

No C 40/22           I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Prolafer Sri                    The applicant therefore alleges infringement of Decision
   against the Commission of the European Communities                3855/91 /ECSC and the erroneous and discriminatory
                        ( Case T-165/96 )
                                                                     interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 4
                                                                     thereof.
                           ( 97/C 40/51 )
                                                                     O Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November
                                                                         1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                         industry ( OJ No L 362 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 October                   Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Ferriera
1996 by Prolafer Sri , whose registered office is at Bergamo         Acciaieria Casilina SpA against the Commission of the
(Italy ), represented by Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of                             European Communities
the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                                             ( Case T-166/96 )
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 40/52 )
                                                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
application and annul the contested measures .                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  1996 by Societa Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, whose
                                                                     registered office is at Rome , represented by Carmine Punzi
                                                                     and Filippo Satta, of the Rome Bar, with an address for
The applicant, a steel company which is in liquidation,              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk ,
has brought an action directed against the same decision             13A Avenue Guillaume .
which is the subject matter of Case T-164/96 Moccia Irme
v. Commission, in so far as it affects it, and also against          The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
the decision of 12 December 1994 , in so far as, in order            application and annul the contested measures .
to define the criteria under the second indent of the
second paragraph of Article 4 of the 'Steel Aid Code ' ( 1 ),        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
it has provided that ' regularly produced' must be
understood as meaning production ' in 1993 [...] on                  The applicant, an Italian steel company, has brought an
average one shift per day, that is, at least 8 hours per day,        action directed principally against the same decision which
5 days per week ', without taking account of interruptions           is the subject-matter of Cases T-l 64/96 Moccia Irme SpA
to production resulting from force majeure.                          v. Commission and T-165/96 Prolafer v. Commission, in
                                                                     so far as it concerns itself.
                                                                     The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those
The applicant points out that its lack of production during          already relied on in the abovementioned cases.
the reference period is not due to a management choice
but arises solely and exclusively from a measure taken by
the Italian criminal judicial authority which has ordered
the attachment of its plant on grounds of environmental
pollution .
                                                                     Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Dora
                                                                     Ferriera Acciaieria Sri, in liquidation, against the
In its view, it is unlawful to allow State aid for the                         Commission of the European Communities
scrapping of steel plant on condition that there has been                                     ( Case T-l 67/96 )
regular production in the brief reference period, without
taking into account that such regularity may have been                                            ( 97/C 40/53 )
prevented by factors wholly outwith the control of the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
 undertaking .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant further alleges that . the principle of equal          Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
 treatment has been breached inasmuch as the Commission               1996 by Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Sri , in liquidation,
 has approved such aid intended for undertakings which               whose registered office is in Bergamo, represented by
 had not reached the minimum level of production. In view             Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of the Rome Bar, with
 of this, it cannot be seen why a voluntary interruption of           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 the production cycle may justify failure to reach the                Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
 minimum level of production , while a total block on
 activity imposed by an order of the criminal judicial                The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
 authority is held to be irrelevant to that end.                      application and annul the contested measures .