Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 7 October 2002 by SGL Carbon AG against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-308/02)

    Language of the Case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 October 2002 by SGL Carbon AG, Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Annul the decision of 24 July 2002 in so far as it refuses to facilitate the making of payments;

(Annul the decision of 24 July 2002 in so far as it seeks payment of default interest for the period from 24 October 2001 to the date of receipt of the declaration of securities at a rate in excess of 6.04%;

(In the alternative, reduce as appropriate the default interest laid down in the decision;

(Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By a decision of 18 July 2001 the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant. ¹ The applicant requested the Commission in October 2001 to set aside the requirement that securities be lodged in respect of the fine claim and ancillary demands, and to facilitate the undertaking in making payments in view of the difficult economic situation. The Commission turned down this request in the decision under challenge, whereupon the applicant lodged the required securities. The Commission is seeking increased interest of 8.04% for the period up to the lodgment of the securities.

The applicant challenges that decision and argues that the Commission committed errors of form and judgment in turning down its request. On formal grounds alone, the Commission, it claims, failed to provide adequate grounds for its negative decision. That decision is also substantively defective in regard to the exercise of judgment as it is not clear that the Commission properly exercised its discretion.

The applicant further takes issue with the supplementary fixing of interest. The applicant invokes deferment of payment and protection of legitimate expectations and raises the objection of misuse of powers. The Commission, it claims, did not make it clear during the period required by it for taking a decision that it would be seeking increased interest for that period. Instead, the Commission intimated that it would forego enforcement measures during its own decision-making period. The applicant regards the Commission's decision as being at variance with this.

____________

¹ - (The applicant has brought an action against that decision (Case T-239/01 SGL Carbon v Commission, OJ 2002 C 3, p. 34).