CELEX: C2001/227/61
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-132/01: Action brought on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys A.B. and Ferroatlantica against the Commission of the European Communities

C 227/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
of the applicant, who lives with his partner and was therefore            the fact that the Community market had failed to strengthen
unable to provide a lease or title deeds or telephone, gas or             or even maintain, its position on the market, and the fact that
electricity bills in his own name. The applicant further claims           Community steel producers had to bear negative effects, in the
infringement of the principle of proper administration, good              form of additional costs brought by the measures in particular,
management and the duty to have regard to the welfare of                  which cumulated while those measures were in force.
officials.
                                                                          In this respect the applicant companies claim that a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment has occurred. They dwell particularly on
                                                                          the fact that the Commission could not call into question the
                                                                          position adopted by the Council in 1993/1994 on Community
                                                                          interest.
Action brought on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages, Péchiney                  In support of their claims, they also submit that the following
Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys A.B. and Ferroatlantica                 provisions of the basic regulation on anti-dumping have been
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      infringed:
                          (Case T-132/01)                                 —     Article 11(2) and Article 2 in so far as those provisions
                                                                                prohibit the taking into account of a period prior to the
                          (2001/C 227/61)                                       measures in force which are under review;
                                                                          —     Article 21(2) and (5) in that the Commission took into
                                                                                account information submitted by users beyond the time
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                limit set by the notice of initiation of the review
                                                                                proceedings;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     Article 21(5), in considering that the information submit-
European Communities on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages,                           ted by the users was representative. In that respect it can
whose registered office is in Brussels, Péchiney Electrométallur-               be noted that the users who submitted information
gie, whose registered office is in Courbevoie (France) Vargon                   represented 10 % of Community consumption;
Alloys A.B., whose registered office is in Vargön (Sweden) and
                                                                          —     Article 21(7) in so far as the Commission took into
Ferroatlantica, whose registered office is in Madrid, represented
                                                                                account information submitted by users which was
by D Voillemot and Olivier Prost, Lawyers.
                                                                                unsubstantiated by actual evidence;
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               —     Article 6(6) as well as infringement of the right to a fair
—     annul the sole article of Commission Decision of 21 Feb-                  hearing by refusing to organise a meeting with the users
      ruary 2001 terminating the anti-dumping procedure                         to allow for exchange of views.
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil,
      the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia,
      Ukraine and Venezuela, with regard to those imports
      originating in the People’s Republic of China, Russia,
      Ukraine and Kazakhstan;
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-137/99 and
                                                                                                      T-18/00 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (2001/C 227/62)
Since the applicant companies in the present case are part of
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
the Community ferro-silicon industry, they object to the
Commission’s decision to terminate the anti-dumping pro-
cedure with regard to the importation of ferro-silicon originat-          By order of 3 April 2001, the President of the Court of First
ing in the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Ukraine. That Decision is based on the consideration that the             removal of the name of Athanasia Chrissanthaki from the list
maintenance of measures previously adopted against those                  of applicants in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00 Natalia
four countries would ‘clearly’ be contrary to the interests of            Martinez Páramo and Others v Commission of the European
the Community. To arrive at this conclusion, the defendant                Communities.
claims to have taken into account the period in which those
measures had been in place, assumed to have begun in 1987,                (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99 and C 79 of 18.3.00.