Case C-76/01 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2001 by Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2000 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-213/97 between Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, import, textile industry, third country

C 108/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

— annul the express rejection of the complaint
lodged by the appellant on 18 May 1998,
notified to him by registered letter of
10 December 1998;

(c)

order, in any event, the defendant to pay all the
costs both at first instance and in the present appeal.

Pleas and main arguments

Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice, given that the obligation to
provide reasons implies, in particular, that the grounds relied
on are admissible in law, that is to say adequate, relevant, free
of errors of law and fact and consistent.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That time-limit expired on 30 October
1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
tion into national law.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

Appeal brought on 14 February 2001 by Committee of
the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European
Union (Eurocoton) and others against the judgment
delivered on 29 November 2000 by the Second Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in case T-213/97 (1) between
Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of
the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and Council
of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom

(Case C-76/01 P)

(2001/C 108/15)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 November
2009 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-213/97 between Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile
Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and
Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom,
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 14 February 2001 by Committee of the
Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union
(Eurocoton), established in Brussels, Belgium, Ettlin Gesell-
schaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG, established in Ettlingen,
Germany, Textil Hof Weberei GmbH & Co. KG, established in
Hof, Germany, H. Hecking Söhne GmbH & Co., established in
Stadtlohn, Germany, Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, estab-
lished in Uhingen, Germany, F.A. Kümpers GmbH & Co.,
established in Rheine, Germany, Tenthorey SA, established in
Eloyes, France, Les Tissages des Héritiers de G. Perrin —
Groupe Alain Thirion (HPG-GAT Tissages), established in
Comimont, France, E´ tablissements des Fils de Victor Perrin
SARL, established in Thiéfosse, France, Filatures et Tissages de
Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, established in Saulxures-sur-Moselot-
te, France, Tissage Mouline Thillot, established in Thillot,
France, Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA, established in Capriolo,
Italy, Standardtela SpA, established in Milan, Italy, represented
by Clive Stanbrook QC and Philip Bentley QC, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

Action brought on 13 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
lic

(Case C-64/01)

(2001/C 108/14)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 Febru-
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on
secondment to its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply fully with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 Sep-
tember 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution preven-
tion and control, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the EC Treaty;

2.

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/11

The Appellant claims that:

— the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 Novem-
ber 2000 in case T-213/97 be annulled in so far as it
applies to the Appellants;

— the Council’s Decision not to adopt the proposal for a
regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics in the People’s
Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
Turkey (COM (97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) be
annulled in so far as it applies to the Appellants;

— it infringed Articles 190 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 253 and 288 EC), and the general legal principle
of coherence in that it held that the argument that the
Measure Challenged was unlawful for failure to state
reasons cannot be upheld and, additionally, it implied that
the Council had complete freedom of action unfettered by
the Basic Regulation.

(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.

— the Appellants’ claim for compensation for the damage
in case T-213/97 be declared founded and the determi-
nation of the amount of compensation referred back to
the Court of First Instance;

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’appello
di Milano by order of 29 January 2001 in the appeal
brought by Payroll Data Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe
SA and ADP GSI SA

— the Council be ordered to pay the Appellants’ costs both

in the present appeal and also in case T-213/97.

(Case C-79/01)

(2001/C 108/16)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance infringed
Community law in the following ways:

— it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally, as
read in the light of Article 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 and of
the GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) and the
general legal principle of coherence, in that it held the
Measure Challenged was not a reviewable act within the
meaning of the said Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 230 EC);

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 29 January 2001 by the
Corte d’appello di Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan), which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Payroll Data
Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA on the
following question:

Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude Italian courts from
applying Article 1 of Law No 12 of 11 January 1979, as
amended by Article 58(16) of Law No 144 of 17 May 1999,
regulating the profession of employment consultant, to the
in absolute terms, external
extent
undertakings providing services relating to the preparation
and printing of pay slips from providing their services to
undertakings having less than 250 employees?

to which it prohibits,

— it infringed Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of
Justice and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance in that it held that the Appellants
had submitted a new claim in breach of those dispositions;

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001
in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes

— it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally as
read in the light of Articles 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 of the
GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) in that it held
that the mere expiry of the 15-month period provided
for in Article 6(9) of the Basic Regulation does not
constitute a decision by the Council which could be the
subject of an action for annulment on the basis of Article
173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230 EC); and

(Case C-80/01)

(2001/C 108/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of 26 January 2001
by the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux (District Court,
Châteauroux), which was received at the Court Registry on
16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SARL
Michel v Recettes des Douanes on the following question: