You are on page 1of 2

10.5.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/35

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission failed The applicant relies on the following:
to take into account the applicant’s smaller total size in relation
to that of the other participants in the infringement while — error of law in the application of Article 87 of the EC
determining the starting point for the calculation of the fine. Treaty: the measure at issue is of general scope and does
According to the applicant, the Commission should have not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87
applied a downward adjustment for the applicant. of the EC Treaty. In any event, the Commission has not
demonstrated that the criterion as to effect on trade
The applicant finally claims that its cooperation with the between Member States has been met;
investigation qualified for a reduction of 50 % rather than
35 %. The applicant states that it voluntarily provided the — error in the facts set out in the decision: the undertakings
Commission with evidence showing that the infringement in the financial sector are affected, as are the undertakings
started earlier than known to the Commission. in the remaining business sectors, by the structural
disadvantages acknowledged in the contested decision;

— breach of an essential procedural requirement in that the


statement of reasons is inadequate;

— breach of the principle of equality; and


Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Banco Comercial
dos Açores, SA against the Commission of the European
Communities — breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
expectations.
(Case T-75/03)

(2003/C 112/67)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Feralpi Siderurgica


An action against the Commission of the European Communi- S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the ties
European Communities on 28 February 2003 by the Banco
Comercial dos Açores, SA, whose registered office is in Edifício
BCA, Rua Dr. José Bruno Tavares Carreiro, Ponta Delgada, (Case T-77/03)
Azores, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Margarida
Rosado da Fonseca, lawyers.
(2003/C 112/68)

The applicant claims that the Court should:


(Language of the case: Italian)
— annul the last part of Article 1, together with Articles 2,
3 and 4 of the decision of the Commission of 11 Decem-
ber 2002 ‘on the part of the scheme adapting the
national tax system to the specific characteristics of the An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
autonomous region of the Azores with regard to the tax ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
reductions’ to the extent that those provisions refer European Communities on 4 March 2003 by the above
to undertakings which pursue the financial activities applicant, represented by Prof. G. M. Roberti, A. Franchi and
provided for in Section J (Codes 65, 66 and 67) of the I. Perego, lawyers,
Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the
European Community — NACE REV1.1);
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay the entire costs.
— annul wholly or in part the Commission Decision of
17 December 2002 on a proceeding pursuant to Article 6
of the ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.956 — concrete
Pleas in law and main arguments reinforcing bars);

The contested decision declares compatible with the common — cancel or reduce the fine imposed pursuant to Article 2
market the aid granted in the form of tax reductions under the of that decision;
tax system of the Azores, but not as regards the financial
services. — order the defendant to pay the costs.
C 112/36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.5.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
Commission was under an obligation to act following the
applicant’s observations. Thus the Commission should either
This action is brought against the same Decision as has already have initiated a procedure against the company against which
been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. the complaint had been made or adopted a definitive decision
rejecting the complaint.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
The applicant further claims that the Commission did not
forward in that case.
adopt a position within a reasonable period since, 16 months
after the applicant submitted its observations and 9 years after
the initial complaint was lodged, the Commission has still not
adopted a definitive position.

Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères


against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Industrie Riunite


(Case T-78/03) Odolesi I.R.O. S.p.A. against the Commission of the
European Communities
(2003/C 112/69)
(Case T-79/03)

(Language of the case: French)


(2003/C 112/70)

(Language of the case: Italian)


An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
whose registered office is in Sorgues (France), represented by An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Nicole Coutrelis, lawyer. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 February 2003 by the above
applicant, represented by Prof. A. Giardina, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:


— declare, pursuant to Article 232 of the Treaty, that the
Commission has failed to adopt a decision following the
complaint submitted by the company Haladjian on — annul the contested decision;
18 October 1993;
— in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on
— order the Commission to pay the costs. IRO in the decision;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments


Pleas in law and main arguments
Nearly 10 years ago, the applicant submitted a complaint to
the Commission concerning an infringement by Caterpillar of This action is brought against the same Decision as has already
Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. The applicant states that been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.
the inquiry into the case was unusually long and that it was
only 8 years later that the Commission sent it a letter advising
of its intention to reject the complaint. The applicant submitted The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
its observations on that letter and waited a year before putting forward in that case.
the Commission on notice. It points out furthermore that the
Commission had still not adopted a position when the present
action was lodged.