Action brought on 1 February 2007 - US Steel Košice v Commission

(Case T-22/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: US Steel Košice s.r.o. (Košice, Slovak Republic) (represented by: E. Vermulst, S. Van Cutsem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul Commission's Decision D/59829 of 22 November 2006 concerning the application of the sales cap to Bulgaria and Romania; and

order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision D/59829 of 22 November 2006 extending the application of the sales cap provided in Title 4, point 2(a)(i) of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession so as to include Bulgaria and Romania. The contested decision determined that the sales cap for 2007 and subsequent years had to be recalculated taking into account 2001 sales data for Romania and Bulgaria. To this end, it required the Slovak Republic to provide the applicant's 2001 sales data for these countries.

The applicant benefits from aid in the form of tax exemption, on the basis of transitional measures in the field of state aid that the Slovak Republic is permitted to apply to one beneficiary in the steel sector.

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the contested decision is illegal insofar as it requires the applicant to modify its sales policy and cap its sales of certain steel products to customers in Bulgaria and Romania in order to benefit from aid authorized under Community law.

The applicant submits that the contested decision imposes an additional condition that did not exist when the Act of Accession entered into force and, thus, contradicts the wording, the spirit and the general scheme of the Act of Accession. According to the applicant the term 'enlarged EU' referred to in Annex XIV, Title 4, point 2(a)(i) does not include Romania and Bulgaria.

In addition, the applicant claims that the contested decision must be annulled since the Commission acted where it had no competence, violated the applicant's legitimate expectations and failed to respect the principle of proportionality.

____________