You are on page 1of 2

C 72/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.3.

98

The applicant claims that the Court should: Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
30 July 1997, relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).

Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.


inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
was paid,

Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European


Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Siderca SAIC
Communities to pay the costs.
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-8/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(98/C 72/55)

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those (Language of the case: English)
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).
An action against the Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25. Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
by Siderca SAIC, represented by Ian S. Forrester QC and
Lord Lester of Herne Hill, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31,
Grand'Rue.

Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Autotrasporti di


The applicant claims that the Court should:
Viola Claudio & C. SNC against the Commission of the
European Communities
(Case T-6/98) Ð annul in whole or in part the Commission's Decision
of 6 October 1997 addressed to Siderca SAIC,
(98/C 72/54)

Ð take such other or further action as justice may


(Language of the case: Italian) require, and

An action against the Commission of the European Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
by Autotrasporti di Viola Claudio & C. SNC, represented Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Claudio Mussato, of the Udine Bar, with an address for
service at 4 Via Dante, Udine.
The shares in the applicant's company, a major Argentine
manufacturer of oil company tubular goods and
The applicant claims that the Court should: mechanical pipe and tube, are ultimately held by the
holding company San Faustin NV. The applicant acquired
in 1993, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, a 27 % (later
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of increased to 30 %) interest in Tubos de Acero de Mexico
30 July 1997, SA (TAMSA), Mexico's only producers of oil company
tubular goods.

Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision


inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover Dalmine (1) is a former subsidiary of the Italian State steel
the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with company Ilva, and manufactures a wide range of pipe and
the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid tube products. The applicant holds, via a wholly owned
was paid, subsidiary, 47 % of the shares in Dalmine, in which it
acquired an interest in 1996. The defendant is
investigating allegations of a cartel among EU steel pipe
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European and tube producers going back to the early 1980s and the
Communities to pay the costs. possibility that, in addition to the core of European
7.3.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72/25

producers, there was a degree of participation or Convention on Human Rights under the European rule of
knowledge on the part of third-country producers, notably law; the proceedings leading up to the contested decision
in Japan and Latin America. were not so conducted.

Finally, the applicant maintains that the inadequate


The contested decision, addressed to Dalmine, the Techint reasoning of the contested decision and the ineffective
Group' and the applicant (c/o Dalmine'), ordered the notification of that decision to the applicant constitute
addressees to answer certain questions appended to that independent and additional grounds for annulment on the
decision within 30 days from the date of its notification. basis of Articles 190 and 191 of the EC Treaty.
The decision imposed on each of the addressees a penalty
of ECU 1 000 for each day of delay in providing the
information requested. (1) Case T-596/97 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

The applicant points out that the contested decision refers


several times to the Techint Group', which is one of the
addressees of that decision. However, the Techint Group'
is no more than a name used to designate various Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Mitteldeutsche
companies engaged in different businesses and having in Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH (MIDER) against the Commission
common the fact that some or all of their shares are of the European Communities
ultimately owned by San Faustin NV. It is not a legal
(Case T-9/98)
entity. No company bearing the Techint' name is engaged
in the manufacture of steel pipes. (98/C 72/56)

(Language of the case: German)


The applicant submits that the defendant, by adopting the
contested decision, has sought to exercise its enforcement
jurisdiction extraterritorially. Public international law An action against the Commission of the European
recognises and respects the separation between the legal Communities was brought before the Court of First
personality of a corporation and that of its owners and Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
between a subsidiary and its parent. The decision, by by Mitteldeutsche Erdöl-Raffinerie GmbH (MIDER),
asserting jurisdiction over a parent company by virtue of whose registered office is at Spergau, Germany,
its 47 % shareholding in a European company, violates represented by Michael Schütte and Martina Maier,
this principle. The defendant does not have the power to Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with an address for service in
take action against a third-country company merely Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn and
because the company owns shares in a European affiliate. Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.

The applicant claims that the Court should:


Furthermore, the defendant infringed Article 11(5) of
Regulation No 17/62 because it lacked jurisdiction to
address to the applicant a mandatory request for
information; it also infringed Articles 15(5) and 16(1)(c) Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 3136 final of
of that regulation. As the defendant did not have 1 October 1997 in so far as it affects the applicant,
jurisdiction to request information from the applicant, it and especially in so far as it holds the application of
follows that it likewise lacked jurisdiction to impose a Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz (Annual Tax
penalty of ECU 1 000 per day and that did so in breach of Law) 1996 to the applicant's project to be
Article 16(1)(c). incompatible with the common market and requires
the aids paid to the applicant pursuant to that
provision to be repaid,

As the imposition of periodic penalty payments on the


applicant must be annulled for lack of competence, in Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
breach of Article 16(1)(c), this circumstance alone would
also constitute sufficient ground for declaring void the
collective imposition of those payments on Dalmine. The Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
decision should be annulled because it violated the
applicant's fundamental procedural right to remain silent
without self-incrimination in the face of what were The applicant, and indirect subsidiary of Elf Aquitaine SA,
effectively criminal charges. An investigation by the Paris, was incorporated for the purpose of establishing a
defendant under Regulation No 17/62 into suspected new refinery at Leuna (in the Bundesland of Saxony-
infringements must be conducted in accordance with the Anhalt). The total amount of the investment was to be in
fair procedures guaranteed by Article 6 of the European the area of DM 4,88 billion. In order to make that