You are on page 1of 2

C 124/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.5.

2003

The applicant further argues that the fine is flagrantly dispro- The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
portionate to its economic strength and is therefore a breach in the abovementioned case. The applicant claims that there is
of the principle of proportionality and the Commission’s no such single undertaking as Siderpotenza-Lucchini and,
guidelines on fines. The Commission also breached the therefore, that the applicant is substantially unconnected to
principle of equal treatment by not fining any of the other the infringement which is the subject of the decision. In point
marketing companies involved in the cartel and, furthermore, of fact, the Commission has not take into account of the fact
by imposing fines on the participating manufacturers which, that Lucchini SpA has never produced concrete reinforcing
measured in relation to turnover, were far lower than that bars.
determined in relation to the applicant. Since the Commission
gave no reason for that worse treatment, there was also an
infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253
EC.

Action brought on 5 March 2003 by the Government


of the Cayman Islands against the Commission of the
European Communities

Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A. (Case T-85/03)


against the Commission of the European Communities

(2003/C 124/46)
(Case T-80/03)

(Language of the case: English)


(2003/C 124/45)

(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 5 March 2003 by the Government
of the Cayman Islands, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- represented by Ms Eleanor Sharpston, QC.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.,
represented by Alberto Santa Maria and Claudio Biscaretti di The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ruffia, lawyers.
— annul the Commission’s decision not to respond to the
urgent request of the Cayman Islands Government to
The applicant claims that the Court should: establish a Partnership Working Party under the Overseas
Association Decision,
— annul the decision of 17 December 2002 C(2002)5087
final in Case COMP/37.956 — concrete reinforcing bars, — order the Commission to pay the Cayman Islands Govern-
imposing on Lucchini SpA, jointly and severally with S.P. ment’s costs.
SpA, previously known as Siderpotenza SpA, a fine of
EUR 16,14 million;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the Pleas in law and main arguments
applicant by the Commission;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs. The Decision challenged in the current case is the Com-
mission’s Decision not to respond to the urgent request of the
applicant for the establishment of a Partnership Working Party
(‘PWP’), in accordance with Article 7 of Council Decision
2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the
Pleas in law and main arguments overseas countries and territories (OCTs) within the European
Community ( 1). The request was made in order to consider
OCT representations in relation to the proposal for a Council
The present action has been brought against the decision Directive on taxation of savings income in the form of interest
contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. payments and/or the automatic exchange of information.
24.5.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 124/27

In its request, the Cayman Islands Government indicated that The applicant claims that the Court should:
it entertained significant reservations about the compatibility
of certain core provisions of the draft Directive with the
fundamental principles of non-discrimination, legitimate — annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude
expectations and proportionality in EC Law and its consistency contracts of employment of 20 June 2002 refusing to
with the aims, purpose and wording of the Overseas Associ- grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;
ation Decision.
— annul the decision explicitly rejecting her complaint of
13 December 2002;
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:
— order the defendant to pay the expatriation allowance to
— That by deciding not to respond to an urgent request for the applicant as from 1 April 2002, deducting, in respect
a PWP until after the proposed directive has been agreed of the past, whatever has been granted to her by way of
by ECOFIN, the Commission has deliberately ensured foreign residence allowance on the date of the judgment
that an effective and useful PWP cannot take place, to be delivered, together with default interest at the rate
rendering the procedure under Article 7 of the above of 8 % per annum, with effect from the mean date
mentioned Council Decision devoid of purpose, and has between 1 April 2002 and the actual date of payment;
placed ECOFIN and the Council in a position where these
bodies are likely to agree respectively and formally to
adopt the proposed directive in violation of the applicant’s — order the defendant to pay the costs.
right to be heard.

— That the Commission is duty bound to consider requests


for PWPs submitted to it by OCTs under Article 7 of the
Overseas Association Decision. In deciding, after three Pleas in law and main arguments
month’s delay, not to respond to the request in question,
and in failing to give adequate reasons for that decision,
the Commission has both misused its decision-making
powers under the Overseas Association Decision and The applicant, a member of the temporary staff who has since
failed to respect the requirements of Article 253 EC. become a probationary official at the Commission, submits
that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employ-
ment wrongly refused to grant her the expatriation allowance
on the ground that the European Youth Forum, for which the
( 1) OJ 2001 L 314, p. 1.
applicant worked from April 1995 to January 2000, did not
satisfy two of the five conditions laid down by the internal
directive adopted in October 1994 laying down five criteria to
be satisfied by organisations in order to be regarded as
‘international organisations’ for the purposes of Article 4 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

In support of her action, the applicant argues that, by


Action brought on 13 March 2002 by María Luisa Atienza
refusing to grant her the expatriation allowance, the authority
Morales against the Commission of the European Com-
authorised to conclude contracts of employment manifestly
munities
misapplied and misinterpreted Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to
the Staff Regulations, basing its decision on reasons which
were incorrect both in fact and in law and therefore placing
(Case T-99/03)
the applicant in an administrative situation which was discrimi-
natory in relation to that of other officials who were in the
same position but who received that allowance.
(2003/C 124/47)

(Language of the case: French) In addition, she relies on infringement of Article 69 of the
Staff Regulations and failure to have proper regard to general
principles of law, such as those requiring the appointing
authority to observe equal treatment as between officials and
to base any decision which it takes only on legally valid
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
reasons.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 March 2003 by María Luisa
Atienza Morales, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.