Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel and three other companies against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-163/02)
(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 27 May 2002 by Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel, Planegg (Germany), Jepsen Stahl GmbH, Nittendorf (Germany), LNS-Lothar Niemeyer Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, Essen (Germany) and Metal Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
- annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002;
1- declare that the defendant must pay compensation to the applicants for the present and future damage suffered by them as a result of the nullity of Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002;
-order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants import steel products from countries outside the European Communities. They object to Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 and claim that the conditions for the introduction of provisional safeguard measures within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994
2, as the basic regulation on which the contested regulation is based, are not met.
The applicants claim that the contested regulation is unlawful and infringes their rights. The Commission was not empowered to issue the regulation in its present form. In addition, the required investigation procedure was not implemented before, but at the same time as, or only after, the regulation was issued.
The applicants further submit that the regulation, and Annexes 1.1 to 2.1 thereto, have a dubious factual basis. On 27 March 2002, the data listed in those annexes were, in fact, not yet available to the Commission, because EUROSTAT had not yet received all the information for 2001.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested regulation is also unlawful on substantive grounds as the measures it lays down are disproportionate. The additional duties are prohibitively high and, with the exception of developing countries, the safeguard measures apply without distinction to all countries.
Finally, the applicants claim that, given the circumstances, the provisional safeguard measures are incompatible with the rules laid down by the World Trade Organisation and GATT, and infringe European Agreements concluded by the Council and the Commission with certain non-member countries.
____________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).2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No 518/94 (OJ No L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53).