CELEX: C1999/226/70
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-124/99: Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Autosalone Ispra dei F.lli Rossi s.n.c against the Commission of the European Communities

7.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 226/39
Action brought on 21 May 1999 by JT’s Corporation                        The contested decision refuses disclosure of documents falling
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                      within the first and pan of the fourth categories on the ground
                            munities                                     that they were covered by the exception regarding the
                                                                         protection of the public interest, as defined in the annex to
                                                                         Decision 94/90. As regards the findings and information
                        (Case T-123/99)                                  obtained through the enquiries carried out in Bangladesh, on
                                                                         the basis of Regulation No 1468/81 (1), the contested decision
                        (1999/C 226/69)                                  invokes grounds of confidentiality. Finally, in relation to the
                                                                         second and part of the fourth categories of the requested
                                                                         material, the contested decision stases that Decision 94/9C
                                                                         requires application to be made to the Government of
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Bangladesh on the basis that it was the author of the documents
                                                                         in question.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant submits that:
European Communities on 21 May 1999 by JT’s Corporation
Limited, represented by Malachy Cornwell-Kelly, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at Wilson Associates, 3                — none of the arguments advanced by the Commission can
boulevard Royal.                                                              be considered as justified in the light of the Decision 94/90
                                                                              and Regulation No 1468/81, and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — the contested decision does not state with sufficient
                                                                              particularity the reasons upon which it is based, as required
— annul the Commission Decision of 11 March 1999;                             by Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81, of 19 May 1981,         on
                                                                             mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Member States and cooperation between the latter and        the
                                                                             Commission to ensure the correct application of the law      on
                                                                             customs oragricultural matters. OJ L 144 of 2.6.1981, p. 1.
The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
Commission to grant it access to certain documents concerning
demands for duty relating to imports of goods for which total
relief from duty was claimed and accorded upon presentation
of GSP Forms A certifying that the goods imported originated
in Bangladesh. It stated for this purpose that the VAT and
Duties Tribunal, before which an appeal had been brought
against the decision of the national authorities refusing
remission of the duty claimed pursuant to Article 239 of the
Community Customs Code, has no jurisdiction to compel the
                                                                         Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Autosalone Ispra dei
production of any documents by the Commission. The
                                                                         F.lli Rossi s.n.c against the Commission of the European
documents of which disclosure has been demanded are
                                                                                                    Communities
intended to be used as an evidence before that tribunal.
                                                                                                   (Case T-124/99)
The documents in question can be divided into the following
categories:
                                                                                                   (1999/C 226/70)
— EU mission reports and annexes;
— responses of the Government of Bangladesh or its agencies                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
     to the report;
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— Commission decisions with respect to the mission reports;              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Autosalone Ispra
— Correspondence between the Commission and the Govern-                  dei F.lli Rossi s.n.c., represented by Francandrea Venuti of the
     ment of Bangladesk with regard to cancellation of the GSP           Busto Arsizio Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     Forms A; and                                                        the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22, Rue Marie-Adelaïde:
— reports or summaries compiled or received by the Com-                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     mission with regard to the operation and conduct of the
     GSP scheme relating to textile goods from Bangladesh
     between 1991 and 1996.                                              — establish and declare that the EAEC is liable;
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/40               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
— therefore order the EAEC, represented by the Commission               2. pursuant to Article 176 of the EC Treaty (Article 233 of
    of the European Communities, to pay to the applicant,                    the Amsterdam Treaty), require the Commission to comply
    Autosalone Ispra dei F.lli Rossi s.n.c., the sum of                      with the Court’s judgment by declaring a further DM 4.875
    LIT 1 245 000 000, together with monetary revaluation                    million of the planned aid compatible with the common
    and interest from the due date until actual payment, or                  market;
    such other sum as may be ordered by the court;
                                                                        3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant’s complaint concerns the damage caused by                 The applicant is a Berlin (Spandau)-based manufacturer of
flooding on it property as a result of the overflowing of a             printing machines and subsidiary of Koenig & Bauer AG. In
stretch of drain which it was the responsibility of the EAEC            cooperation with other group companies, i produces individual
                                                                        assemblies for the various production plants in the group.
Joint Research Centre (JRC) to manage and maintain.
                                                                        Severe economic problems in 1996 threatened the company
                                                                        with closure in 1997, but this was averted by aid from the
                                                                        Land Berlin and a restructuring plan.
According to the applicant, the JRC has the authority and the
duty to oversee the structures connected with the operation of
the whole Centre, including the drain in question. Conse-
quently, the JRC has acted negligently, imprudently and                 In the contested decision, the Commission held that the
incompetently in not anticipating the incident.                         State aid planned for the plaintiff of DM 9.31 million was
                                                                        compatible with the common market only as to DM
                                                                        4.435 million thereof, and that the excess over that figure
                                                                        could not be granted.
                                                                        The applicant challenges the prohibition of the additional
                                                                        amount, arguing that it relates to development costs which in
                                                                        the Commission’s view had been incurred before notification
                                                                        in January 1998 and allegedly benefited not the applicant but
                                                                        its parent company.
Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Graphischer Maschi-
nenbau GmbH against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  The applicant maintains that the disallowed development costs
                                                                        are a central component of the restructuring plan, and that aid
                         (Case T-126/99)                                of that amount is necessary for the restructuring.
                         (1999/C 226/71)                                It argues that the Commission has:
                                                                        — wrongly based its decision on the timing of a part of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                             development costs;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               — put an inappropriate time-limit on the development costs;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Graphischei
Maschinenbau, whose registered office is in Berlin, represented         — insufficiently examined the facts;
by Albrecht Bach Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong & Dupong,
4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.                                                — denied the applicant a proper hearing;
                                                                        — insufficiently stated its reasons for the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  and
1. pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 174 of the EC             — infringed Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in the exercise
    Treaty (Article 230(4) of the Amsterdam Treaty), annul the               of its powers.
    second sentence of Article 1 of Commission Decision
    K(1999) 327 endg. of 3 February 1999, prohibiting the
    planned grant of state aid by the Federal Republic of
    Germany (No C 54/98) to Graphischer Maschinenbau.
    Berlin. in so far as it exceeded DM 4.435 million;