CELEX: C1998/137/47
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 March 1998 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-50/98)

2.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (alloy surcharge) in so
                                                                            far as it concerns the applicant,
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 21 January
    1998 in Case IV/35.814 (Alloy surcharge) in so far as               Ð in the alternative, reduce the fine,
    it is addressed to it,
                                                                        Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð alternatively, reduce substantially the fine imposed on
    it,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        For some time a number of producers of stainless steel
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     have applied a common mark-up, which is known as the
                                                                        alloy surcharge. That price supplement is calculated on the
By the contested decision the Commission found that the                 basis of the price of the components of the alloy.
applicant, a Spanish public company active in the stainless
steel sector, together with other companies manufacturing               According to the Commission, in its decision of 21 January
these products, had infringed Article 65(1) of the ECSC                 1998, there is an agreement between the producers to that
Treaty by jointly agreeing in December 1993 to modify                   effect. The cartel restricts competition to a substantial
and apply in concert the reference values of the                        extent, since the undertakings involved produce 90 % of
calculation formula of alloy surcharges, a practice which,              all stainless steel. According to the Commission, those
the Commission claimed, had as its object and effect, the               agreements constitute an infringement of Article 65 of the
restriction and distortion of competition within the                    ECSC Treaty.
common market.
                                                                        The applicant challenges the Commission's decision on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are, in principle, the              grounds that:
same as those raised in Cases T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen
Nirosta GmbH and T-47/98 Acciai Speciali Terni and                      Ð even without the agreements all producers would have
T-49/98 ALZ NV, concerning the other companies                              taken steps to adapt prices to the economic situation,
forming the alleged cartel (1).
                                                                        Ð the Commission overestimated the impact of the alloy
The applicant further claims not to have participated in
                                                                            surcharge on prices and failed to take account of the
any agreement or concerted practice within the meaning
                                                                            circumstances of each individual undertaking
of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. If the applicant could be
                                                                            concerned,
regarded as having participated in such agreement or
concerted practice, quod non, the infringement can, at
most, be regarded as sporadic and ephemeral and not as                  Ð the Commission imposed similar fines on all the
having the duration alleged by the Commission. Finally,                     undertakings concerned, without taking account of the
the fines imposed on the applicant are in any event                         considerable differences between the sizes of the
disproportionate and discriminatory.                                        undertakings,
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                          Ð the Commission infringed the rights of the defence.
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by ALZ NV against                       Action brought on 20 March 1998 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
          Commission of the European Communities                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-49/98)                                                         (Case T-50/98)
                          (98/C 137/46)                                                          (98/C 137/47)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1998                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
by ALZ NV, established in Genk, Belgium, represented by                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.                 (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
Loesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, 11, rue Goethe.                          Luxembourg Bar, 180, route de Longwy.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998)68 final of                    Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
    21 January 1998 concerning a procedure pursuant to                      him to Grade A 4 in the 1997 promotions procedure,
 ---pagebreak--- C 137/22          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 2.5.98
Ð annul the decision of the Commission to promote the           Ð order the defendant to pay monetary compensation in
   118 persons chosen from the list of officials most               respect of non-material damage suffered in the order
   deserving of promotion to Grade A 4, published in                of LUF 500 000 or any other amount which the Court
   Administrative Notices No 999 of 12 August 1997,                 may deem fair and equitable,
   operational appropriations, 1997 promotions to Grade
   A 4,                                                         Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul, in so far as necessary, the express decision of
   the Commission of 8 January 1998 rejecting the               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
   applicant's complaint No R634/97 of 28 August 1997,          those in Case T-234/97 (1).
   lodged with the Secretariat-General on 3 September
   1997,                                                        (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 20.