Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 14 May 2002 by VVG International Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., VVG (International) Limited and Metalsivas Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-155/02)

    (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 14 May 2002 by VVG International Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., VVG (International) Limited and Metalsivas Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H., Vienna (Austria), represented by W. Schuler, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

- annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 ¹ and order the defendant to pay the applicants' costs;

- in the alternative, annul the contested regulation in so far as it includes product group 4 "alloy hot rolled flat products" in the 15 product groups concerned;

-in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group "alloy hot rolled flat products" to 468 000 tonnes (2001 import volume);

- in the alternative, amend the quota for the product group "alloy hot rolled flat products" to 118 916 tonnes.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are importers of steel products affected by the contested regulation. That regulation opened tariff quotas in respect of the importation of 15 products into the Community. Imports of those products in excess of the volume laid down by the relevant tariff quota will incur additional customs duties.

The applicants claim that the levels set for the free tariff quotas, in particular in respect of product group 4, cannot be reconciled with the recitals in the preamble to the regulation. For product group 4 alone there is a shortfall of 95 129 tonnes. No reason is given for why the tariff quotas set in the regulation do not comply with the regulation's aims, as determined by the defendant itself, or with its own formula for the calculation of those quotas.

In addition, the applicants submit that the statement of reasons for the regulation is also defective in that in the recitals in the preamble there is no examination whatever of the interests of all market operators affected by the regulation. No reasons are given for why the purported aim of the regulation can be achieved only by the measures set out therein, why only the interests of Community manufacturers are protected while the interests of other market actors are not take into account, or why the measures adopted in the regulation took effect immediately and without any vacatio legis. All those deficiencies in the statement of reasons constitute a material breach of procedural requirements which renders the contested regulation void.

The applicants additionally claim that the regulation pursues different aims to those stated in the preamble and that the Commission misused its discretionary powers. The failure to observe the purported aim of "maintaining the current import level plus 10 % thereof " is particularly clear evidence that other aims are being pursued.

Furthermore, the Commission acted in breach of primary and secondary Community legislation, the principle of equal treatment and the WTO Agreement.

____________

¹ - Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ No L 85, 28.03.2002, p. 1).