CELEX: C1998/113/45
Language: en
Date: 1998-04-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA against the Council of the European Union (Case T-33/98)

C 113/18              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with          Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid                 against the Council of the European Union
     was paid,                                                                             (Case T-33/98)
                                                                                            (98/C 113/45)
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 February 1998 by Petrotub SA,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                   represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
relied on Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia v.
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
Commission (1).
                                                                   4, boulevard Royal.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                       97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Netherlands              Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
Antilles against the Commission of the European                        97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
                          Communities
                        (Case T-32/98)                             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                         (98/C 113/44)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   Following a complaint lodged by the Defence Committee
                                                                   of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Union, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  investigation in respect of imports into the Community of
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
1998 by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F.          originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and
Bos and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an              the Slovak Republic. At the same time, the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               announced the initiation of an interim review of Council
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.                                    Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 in respect of imports of
                                                                   certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel
                                                                   originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Croatia. The anti-dumping proceeding so initiated
                                                                   followed the normal course and on its conclusion the
                                                                   Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of
Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2532/97 of                   17 November 1997, imposing definitive anti-dumping
     27 November 1997 introducing specific measures in             duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of
     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas        iron and non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland,
     countries and territories (1),                                Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak
                                                                   Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and
                                                                   terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.               originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under Romanian
                                                                   law, challenges the abovementioned Regulation, on the
                                                                   grounds that the Community institutions:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
those in Case T-163/97 (2) and T-179/97 (3).
                                                                   Ð have acted in breach of Article 22 of the basic
                                                                       anti-dumping Regulation (hereinafter the Basic
(1) OJ L 326, 28.11.1997, p. 21.
(2) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 31.
                                                                       Regulation') and also Article 34 of the Association
(3) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, p. 25.                                        Agreement with Romania, by imposing anti-dumping
                                                                       duties without referring the matter to the Association
                                                                       Council, and the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                       contested Regulation is inadequate in this respect,
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 113/19
Ð have exceeded the limits of their discretion in the                Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA
    determination of the normal value by using, pursuant                      against the Council of the European Union
    to Article 3(4), third subparagraph, of the Basic                                        (Case T-34/98)
    Regulation, the 20 % rule to determine whether sales
    below costs are made in substantial quantities,                                           (98/C 113/46)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
Ð have infringed Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation
    and committed a manifest error of appraisal with                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
    respect to the calculation of the dumping margin,                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    inasmuch as                                                      Communities on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA,
                                                                     represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
    Ð no explanation has been given as to why a                      4, boulevard Royal.
        comparison of the weighted average normal value
        with the prices of all individual export transactions
         reflects the full degree of dumping better than the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
         normal methods,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
    Ð the dumping determination is based on factors
         falling outside the investigation period,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
    Ð the existence of a pattern of export prices differing
         according to the various purchasers, regions or             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
         time-periods has not been demonstrated,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð have committed manifest errors of appraisal in the
    determination of injury and failed to demonstrate                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
    in accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the                   those relied on in Case T-33/98 Petrotub v. Council.
    Basic Regulation that material injury suffered by
    Community industry is caused by the imports from the
    countries subject to the investigation,
Ð have failed, in breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic               Action brought on 25 February 1998 by AndreÂ Hecq
    Regulation and the fundamental right to be heard, to               against the Commission of the European Communities
    give final disclosure on the considerations relating to                                  (Case T-35/98)
    the Community interest.
                                                                                              (98/C 113/47)
The applicant finally submits that the conditions imposed                           (Language of the case: French)
by the Community institutions for imports to be exempted
from the anti-dumping duties in accordance with Article 2            An action against the Commission of the European
of the contested Regulation constitute an infringement of            Communities was brought before the Court of First
Articles 8(1) of the Basic Regulation and of the 1994                Instance of the European Communities on 25 February
GATT Anti-dumping Agreement, Article 34(2) and (3) of                1998 by AndreÂ Hecq, residing in Bonlez (Belgium), both
the Association Agreement with Romania, the conclusions              in his own name and that of the UIECS, represented by
of the Essen European Council laying down the                        Lucas Vogel of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
foundations for the pre-accession strategy for the                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and              Kremer, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. In relation to the last
point, it is contended that by requiring the applicant to set
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
its prices in line with the European producers, the
Community institutions have forced the applicant into a
parallel pricing behaviour in contravention of the                   Ð annul the decision of 17 November 1997, notified to
European competition rules.                                              the applicant on 24 November 1997, rejecting the
                                                                         applicant's complaint against the decision of 20 March
                                                                         1997, adopted in response to the applicant's request
(1) OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.                                          pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         refusing to take the measures necessary to ensure
                                                                         collective and proportional representation in the
                                                                         membership of the Bureau of the local Staff