Case T-29/01: Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente Martín against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses

C 118/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
Martı´n against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

of 30 January 2001

in Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000
— Registration of a protected geographical indication —
‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Measure of general
application — Inadmissibility)

(2001/C 118/109)

(Case T-29/01)

(2001/C 118/110)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
Martı´n, residing in Madrid, represented by Oscar Gonza´lez
Correas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 November 2000

(Ref. 2974);

In Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste, established at Morlaas
(France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, lawyer with a right of
audience before the Conseil d’E´ tat and the Cour de Cassation,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and X. Lewis) —
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the Annex to
Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in
the Register of protected designations of origin and protected
geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
and foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 154, p. 5), as regards registration as
a protected geographical indication of the name ‘Canard à foie
Instance (Fifth
gras du Sud-Ouest’ — the Court of First
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı´a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 30 January 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs of
the Commission.

(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

— declare that the applicant is entitled to the full installation
allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to
the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations, as laid down in Article 71 of those Regu-
lations;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present dispute is a former Commission
official who is disputing the appointing authority’s decision to
refuse him both an installation allowance for settling in
Belgium, on the ground that he was reinstated in service
following the withdrawal of his previous status of permanent
invalidity, and a resettlement allowance for Spain after his
service terminated. The applicant claims that he is entitled
to those allowances in accordance with the provisions of
Article 5(1), the first paragraph of Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(a)
and (b) and Article 9(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.

In support of his claims, the applicant submits:

— that a finding of invalidity is a matter governed by the
rules and depends not on the individual but on an
objective situation;

— that, according to settled case-law, an established official
is entitled to the disputed allowances even when the place
in which he has settled has not changed;

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/41

— that, in any event, a period of three and a half years
elapsed between 1 December 1995, the date on which he
was first found to be suffering from invalidity, and his
reinstatement in service on 16 June 1999, a fairly long
period of time during which the applicant’s home in
Belgium had to be kept up and maintained in order to be
ready for use on his return to Belgium. Further, the
applicant incurred substantial costs prior to moving to
Belgium.

— Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 3(8) of the basic dumping
regulation in determining that the Community industry
has suffered material injury,

— Article 3(6) of the basic dumping regulation in determin-
ing that imports from the targeted countries caused
material injury to the Community industry, and

— Articles 20(4), 20(5) and 6(9) of the basic dumping
regulation, Article 253 EC as well as the applicant’s right
to a fair hearing.

(1) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.

Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
Union

(Case T-35/01)

(2001/C 118/111)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under Chinese
Law, represented by Paul Waer, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000
of 27 November 2000 in so far as it imposes an anti-
dumping duty on Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd.,
and;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against
the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

(Case T-36/01)

(2001/C 118/112)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel,
established under the laws of Belgium, represented by Susanne
Möbus of Müller-Boré & Parnter, Munich (Germany).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of
30 November 2000 (case R 0137/2000-1);

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the Office to pay the costs.

The applicant in the present case is a company incorporated
under Chinese Law, whose object is to manufacture high
technology products. It claims that, by imposing anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain retail electronic weighing scales
manufactured and exported by the applicant, the defendant
has infringed various provisions of the Council Regulation
No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Communities (1) (the
basic dumping regulation). It is submitted that the Council has
infringed:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned:

A design applied to a surface
of the goods in accordance with
Article 63(1), of the regulation on
the Community trade mark (Case
R 0137/2000-1).

Product or service:

Classes 11, 19 and 21.

— Article 2(7)c of the basic dumping regulation in denying
that the applicant could be granted market economy
status,

Challenged
before
Appeal:

decision
the Board of

Refusal of
Examiner.

registration by the