CELEX: C2004/021/75
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-348/03: Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/35
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               Coberco Dairy Foods Holding N.V., established in Meppel
                            INSTANCE                                       (Netherlands), represented by Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk.
                       of 20 October 2003
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case T-46/03 R: Leali SpA v Commission of the
                    European Communities
                                                                           1)    annul Article 2 of Commission Decision of 17 February
(Application for interim measures — Competition — Pay-                           2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
    ment of fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)                              for international financing of activities (2003/515/EC) in
                                                                                 so far as it is decided that undertakings which as at
                                                                                 11 July 2001 had already lodged a request with the tax
                          (2004/C 21/74)                                         authority for application of the gfa scheme, but in respect
                                                                                 of which no formal decision had yet been taken, would
                                                                                 not be eligible for the transitional scheme;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2)    order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                                 those of the applicant.
In Case T-46/03 R: Leali Spa, whose registered office is in
Odolo (Italy), represented by G. Belotti and G. Vezzoli, lawyers,
supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia)
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Pignataro and A. Whelan) — application for
suspension of operation of the Commission decision of
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65
CS (COMP/37.956 — concrete-reinforcing bars), inasmuch as
it imposes upon the applicant, jointly and severally with
Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA, in liquidation, a fine of
EUR 6,093 million and, solely upon the applicant, a fine of                On 27 December the applicant lodged a request with the
EUR 1,082 million, the President of the Court of First Instance            Netherlands tax authority to set up a reserve with effect from
made an order on 20 October 2003, the operative part of                    1 January 2000 on the basis of the scheme concerning
which is as follows:                                                       international financing activities (the gfa scheme).
1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           In the contested decision (1) the Commission found that the
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                           gfa scheme was aid that was incompatible with the common
                                                                           market and ordered the Netherlands Government to abolish
                                                                           the scheme. In addition the contested decision provides for a
                                                                           transitional scheme. The Commission subsequently, in an
                                                                           answer to a question from the Netherlands Government,
                                                                           indicated that this transitional scheme does not apply for
                                                                           undertakings which, like the applicant, had in fact lodged a
                                                                           request for application of the gfa scheme before 11 April 2003
Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Friesland Coberco                     but where no decision had yet been taken on that request. The
Dairy Foods Holding N.V. against the Commission of the                     Netherlands tax authority then rejected the applicant’s request.
                    European Communities
                         (Case T-348/03)
                                                                           In support of its application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                           of general principles of Community law, including the prin-
                          (2004/C 21/75)                                   ciple of equal treatment and the principle of protection of
                                                                           legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the general
                                                                           principles of Community law preclude the restriction of the
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           transitional scheme to undertakings in respect of which a
                                                                           decision had been taken as at 11 July 2001. By virtue of that
                                                                           restriction, undertakings which at that moment had a request
                                                                           pending before the tax authority for permission to set up a
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  reserve, and which were therefore just as much entitled to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 expect that the gfa scheme was compatible with the Treaty,
European Communities on 10 October 2003 by Friesland                       are being treated differently without any objective justification.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/36                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 253 EC.                  Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM
According to the applicant, the Commission has not                                KG against the Council of the European Union
adequately set out the reasons why the transitional rule in
Article 2 of the contested decision must be restricted to
undertakings in respect of which the tax authority had taken a
                                                                                                   (Case T-364/03)
decision as at 11 July 2001.
(1) 2003/515/EC: Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the                                     (2004/C 21/77)
    State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
    financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against The Council of the European Union was
Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                           against Europol                                 Communities on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG,
                                                                           Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany, represented by Dr Robert
                                                                           MacLean, Solicitor with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                           (Case T-355/03)
                            (2004/C 21/76)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
                                                                                 Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the Council of Ministers of
                                                                                 the European Union is liable for the damage caused to
                                                                                 the Applicant and order the Council to pay damages to
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                        the Applicant for the sum of 89 286 EUR in interest and
First Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                         the sum of 81 079 EUR in legal costs of the administrative
2003 by Andreas Mausolf, resident in Leiden (Netherlands),                       procedure, or whatever sums the Court decides appro-
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. de Casparis.                                priate;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
                                                                                 the procedure.
1)     annul the implicit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
       complaint challenging the decision of 2 January 2003
       and also to annul the decision of 2 January 2003;
2)     order Europol to pay compensation to Andreas Mausolf,               Pleas in law and main arguments
       including in any event the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                           The applicant is a company dealing in leather handbags. In
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            the course of its business it regularly imported handbags
                                                                           manufactured by a company based in the People’s Republic of
                                                                           China. Council Regulation EC 1567/971 (1) imposed a defini-
The applicant contests the decision not to award him an extra              tive anti-dumping duty on imports of leather handbags
step with effect from 1 July 2002.                                         originating in that country. That Regulation was later amended
                                                                           by Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November
                                                                           1998 (2) which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty rate of
The applicant submits that the contested decision contains an              0 % on the handbags imported by the applicant.
inadequate statement of reasons and thereby conflicts with the
general principle that decisions must state the reasons on
which they are based.
                                                                           However, this provision was not given retroactive effect and
                                                                           consequently duties paid by the applicant until then were not
                                                                           refunded.