CELEX: C1997/040/53
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Società Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, in liquidation, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-167/96)

No C 40/22           I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Prolafer Sri                    The applicant therefore alleges infringement of Decision
   against the Commission of the European Communities                3855/91 /ECSC and the erroneous and discriminatory
                        ( Case T-165/96 )
                                                                     interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 4
                                                                     thereof.
                           ( 97/C 40/51 )
                                                                     O Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November
                                                                         1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                         industry ( OJ No L 362 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 October                   Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Ferriera
1996 by Prolafer Sri , whose registered office is at Bergamo         Acciaieria Casilina SpA against the Commission of the
(Italy ), represented by Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of                             European Communities
the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                                             ( Case T-166/96 )
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 40/52 )
                                                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
application and annul the contested measures .                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  1996 by Societa Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, whose
                                                                     registered office is at Rome , represented by Carmine Punzi
                                                                     and Filippo Satta, of the Rome Bar, with an address for
The applicant, a steel company which is in liquidation,              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk ,
has brought an action directed against the same decision             13A Avenue Guillaume .
which is the subject matter of Case T-164/96 Moccia Irme
v. Commission, in so far as it affects it, and also against          The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
the decision of 12 December 1994 , in so far as, in order            application and annul the contested measures .
to define the criteria under the second indent of the
second paragraph of Article 4 of the 'Steel Aid Code ' ( 1 ),        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
it has provided that ' regularly produced' must be
understood as meaning production ' in 1993 [...] on                  The applicant, an Italian steel company, has brought an
average one shift per day, that is, at least 8 hours per day,        action directed principally against the same decision which
5 days per week ', without taking account of interruptions           is the subject-matter of Cases T-l 64/96 Moccia Irme SpA
to production resulting from force majeure.                          v. Commission and T-165/96 Prolafer v. Commission, in
                                                                     so far as it concerns itself.
                                                                     The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those
The applicant points out that its lack of production during          already relied on in the abovementioned cases.
the reference period is not due to a management choice
but arises solely and exclusively from a measure taken by
the Italian criminal judicial authority which has ordered
the attachment of its plant on grounds of environmental
pollution .
                                                                     Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Dora
                                                                     Ferriera Acciaieria Sri, in liquidation, against the
In its view, it is unlawful to allow State aid for the                         Commission of the European Communities
scrapping of steel plant on condition that there has been                                     ( Case T-l 67/96 )
regular production in the brief reference period, without
taking into account that such regularity may have been                                            ( 97/C 40/53 )
prevented by factors wholly outwith the control of the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
 undertaking .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant further alleges that . the principle of equal          Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
 treatment has been breached inasmuch as the Commission               1996 by Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Sri , in liquidation,
 has approved such aid intended for undertakings which               whose registered office is in Bergamo, represented by
 had not reached the minimum level of production. In view             Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of the Rome Bar, with
 of this, it cannot be seen why a voluntary interruption of           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 the production cycle may justify failure to reach the                Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
 minimum level of production , while a total block on
 activity imposed by an order of the criminal judicial                The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
 authority is held to be irrelevant to that end.                      application and annul the contested measures .
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97            I tN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 40 / 23
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          27 July 1995 seeking, first, the provision of a valid
                                                                             staff report for 1991 to 1993 and , second, payment of
The applicant, an Italian steel company in liquidation, has
                                                                             compensation for the non-material damage suffered as
brought an action directed principally against the same                      a result of non-compliance with the rules on the
decision which is the subject matter of Cases T-l 64/96
                                                                             drawing-up of staff reports and the belated inclusion
Moccia Irme SpA v. Commission and T-l 65/96 Prolafer v.
Commission, in so far as it concerns itself.
                                                                             of the report in his personal file,
The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those                     — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
already relied on in the abovementioned cases.                               decision of 18 July 1996 expressly rejecting the
                                                                             applicant's complaint No R/l 47/96 ,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay compensation for the non­
                                                                             material damage suffered, in the sum of Bfrs 500 000
Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Salini                                 or such other sum as the Court may consider fair and
Costruttori SpA against the Commission of the European                       reasonable,
                            Communities
                         ( Case T-l 88/96 )                             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                            ( 97/C 40/54 )                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant contests the fact that, on 20 January 1995 ,
An action against the Commission of the European                        the appointing authority officially recorded receipt of his
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       staff report for 1991 to 1993 and placed it on his personal
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     file, whereas that report was merely a reiteration of his
 1996 by Salini Costruttori SpA, whose registered office is             report for the period 1989 to 1991 .
in Rome, represented by Jean-Pierre Cuny, of the                        By note dated 25 July 1995 , the applicant submitted a
Versailles Bar ( France ).                                              request within the meaning of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff
The applicant claims that the Court should declare                      Regulations, applying in particular for a report to be
unlawful the Commission's failure to fulfil its obligation              drawn up in the prescribed manner in respect of the
to address to the Italian Government a decision based on                period under consideration . The Commission expressly
Article 93 ( 2 ) and Article 101 of the Treaty.                         rejected the request. The complaint lodged against the
                                                                        rejection decision was partially refused, in that the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    administration offered him, by way of reparation for the
 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                   non-material damage suffered, compensation of
 those relied on in Case T-l 87/96 .                                    Bfrs 35 000 .
                                                                        The present action is directed against that latter decision .
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant maintains that there
                                                                         has been a breach of the duty to have regard for the
 Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Lars Bo                           welfare and interests of officials, a breach of the principle
 Rasmussen against the Commission of the European                        of equality of treatment and an infringement of Articles 26
                             Communities
                                                                         and 43 of the Staff Regulations .
                          ( Case T-193/96 )
                                                                         He observes in that regard that the reiterated staff report,
                              ( 97/C 40/55 )                             corresponding to the period from 1989 to 1991 , covered
                   (Language of the case: French)                        only four months spent in Directorate D of DG V. That
                                                                         report was drawn up by the Director-General of the
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Translation Service and, since the applicant was assigned
  Communities was brought before the Court of First                      on    1   March    1991    to  the   Directorate-General    for
 Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     Employment, there has necessarily been a radical change
  1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim                          of duties, and also of reporting officer. In those
  ( Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                  circumstances, reiteration of the staff report should not
  Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                          and could not have been possible .
  Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 Route de Longwy.
                                                                          In addition, the applicant considers that he is entitled, like
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                            any other official , to a valid staff report, so that the
  — annul the decision of the appointing authority                        competent authorities can decide on his eligibility for
        rejecting the applicant's request No D/661 /95 of                 promotion and career.