CELEX: C1998/234/69
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 June 1998 by National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-89/98)

C 234/36              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
provide an appropriate steatement of reasons for the                 concerned manufactured and exported to the Community
adoption of an anti-dumping duty in this form, thereby               by the applicants.
denying the applicant its fundamental right to a fair
hearing.                                                             The applicants plead infringement of the following articles
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2):
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 449/98, OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
    p. 15.
(2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.                                       Ð Articles 2(8) and 2(9), in that the export price is
                                                                          determined as the price charged by Tata International
                                                                          to unrelated customers in the Community.
                                                                     Ð Article 2(10) in that, as an adjustment pursuant to
                                                                          Article 2(10)(i), a notional commission payment is
Action brought on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                        deducted from the export price.
Limited and Tata International Limited against the
                Council of the European Union                        Ð Article 18(3), in that, owing to continue reliance on
                        (Case T-88/98)                                    information which was known to be incorrect, any
                                                                          reasonably accurate finding was made impossible and,
                         (98/C 234/68)                                    finally,
                (Language of the case: English)                      Ð Article 20(4), because of failure to give adequate
                                                                          disclosure of the essential facts and considerations.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98, OJ L 50 of 20.2.1998,
Communities on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                          p. 1.
Limited and Tata International Limited, represented by               (2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.
Jean-FrancËois Bellis and Philippe De Baere, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Action brought on 8 June 1998 by National Association
Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98               of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) against the
     of 16 February 1998 imposing a definitive anti-                           Commission of the European Communities
     dumping duty on the imports of stainless steel                                          (Case T-89/98)
     fasteners and parts thereof originating in, inter alia,
     India, in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping                                 (98/C 234/69)
     duty on stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof
     manufactured and exported by the applicants; and                               (Language of the case: English)
Ð order the Council to bear the costs of these                       An action against the Commission of the European
     proceedings.                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators
                                                                     (NALOO), represented by Mark Cran QC and Mark
                                                                     Hoskins, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicants are limited companies established under               Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue Aldringen.
the laws of India. Kundan manufactures stainless steel
fasteners and sells them to Tata International, which,
being an export trading company, exports them to                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
independent importers within the Community.
                                                                     Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
By Article 1(2) of the contested regulation (1) a definitive              1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel fasteners                 submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of                 void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan                     against the CEGB; and
and Thailand has been imposed. On imports of the
products concerned exported by Kundan Industries Ltd./              Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
Tata Export Ltd., Mumbai' a definitive duty of 47.4 % has                 1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
been imposed.                                                             submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
                                                                          void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
The present application for annulment is directed against                 against British Coal; and
Article 1 of the contested regulation in so far as it imposes
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the products            Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/37
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                b) order the Commission to pay the following amounts,
                                                                       which are equivalent to (i) the sums of fine payable by
The applicant is a trade association of private mining                 the Commission to the applicants together with (ii)
undertakings. By the application, made under Article 33                interest on those sums calculated at the official
of the ECSC Treaty, the applicant seeks a declaration that             discount rate of the Banque Nationale de Belgique
the decision of the Commission of 27 April 1998 not to                 plus 1 % of the EMCF rate plus 1,5 % from the date
act on the Supplemental Complaint submitted to it by the               of payment of the fines by the Swedish addressees
applicant is void in so far as it relates to the complaints            until 31 May 1993, in compensation for the
made against the Central Electricity generating Board                  Commission's unlawful refusal to discharge the
(CEGB) and British Coal. The Supplemental Complaint,                   obligations arising as a result of the Wood pulp
dated 15 June 1994, dealt with excessive royalties charged             judgment:
by British Coal and discriminatory pricing operated by the
CEGB in relation to the price paid for coal in the licensed            Ð to AssiDomän Kraft Products AB: (i) ECU 130 000
sector.                                                                    plus (ii) BF 4 573 470.13 or ECU 107 867.02;
The applicant submits that Article 63(1) of the ECSC                   Ð to AB Iggesunds Bruk: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(b) of the ECSC                       1 019 686.33 or ECU 24 117.25;
Treaty, imposes an obligation on the Commission to adopt
a finding in relation to past infringements. Article 66(7)
                                                                       Ð to Korsnäs AB: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
of the ECSC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 4(d) of
                                                                           1 055 459.43 or ECU 24 893.32;
the ECSC Treaty, likewise imposes an obligation on the
Commission to adopt a finding in relation to past
infringements. The imposition of excessive royalties under             Ð to MoDo Paper AB: (i) ECU 30 000 plus (ii) BF
the licence agreements between British Coal and the                        1 055 459.43 of ECU 24 893.32;
licensed operators falls within the scope of Article 65 of
the ECSC Treaty.                                                       Ð to Södra Cell AB: (i) ECU 80 000 plus (ii) BF
                                                                           2 814 464.79 or ECU 66 380.18;
Furthermore, the Commission has manifestly failed to
fulfil its duty properly to consider the Supplemental                  Ð to Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB: (i) ECU
Complaint, its evidence and its own prior findings, and is                 190 000 plus (ii) BF 6 684 318.72 or ECU
manifestly in breach of Articles 63(1), 66(7) and 65 of the                157 652.15;
ECSC Treaty.
                                                                       Ð to Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA): (i) ECU 130 000
Finally, the Commission was not entitled to adopt a                        plus (ii) BF 4 573 470.13 or ECU 107 867.02;
decision on the basis that the applicant had not supplied
sufficient evidence. On the contrary, the applicant had
consistently indicated its readiness to provide further            c) by way of compensation for the loss caused by the
evidence if the Commission so required.                                Commission's inexcusable delay in not discharging by
                                                                       31 May 1993 the obligations arising as a result of the
                                                                       Wood pulp judgment, order the Commission to pay to
                                                                       the applicants (i) compensatory interest in such
                                                                       amounts as the Court considers just and appropriate
                                                                       compensation for their loss, or (ii) default interest at
Action brought on 5 June 1998 by AssiDomän Kraft                       8 % on the amounts set out under (b) above, in either
Products AB and six other Swedish wood pulp companies                  case from 1 June 1993 up until the Court's judgment
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  in this case;
                      (Case T-90/98)
                                                                   d) order the Commission to pay the applicants interest at
                       (98/C 234/70)
                                                                       8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be
                                                                       paid under subparagraphs (b) and (c) above as from
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       the date of the Court's judgment in this case until
                                                                       actual payment;
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1998 by             e) order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and six other Swedish
wood pulp companies, represented by John Pheasant, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe.
                                                                   In 1985 numerous undertakings (amongst them the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        applicants), active in the wood pulp business, were the
                                                                   addressees of the Commission decision stating that they
a) annul the Commission decision contained in the letter           had committed infringements of Article 85(1) of the EC
     of 26 March 1998 bearing the reference SG(98)D/               Treaty (the Wood pulp decision' (1)). Fines were imposed,
     2434;                                                         which have been paid by the addressees.