Case T-36/01: Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), sugar industry

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

C 118/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

Grounds submitted:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)b

of Regulation n. 40/94.

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of

Regulation n. 40/94.

— Infringement of

the appli-

cant’s right of defence.

The applicant states that, nearly four years after its complaint,
the Commission has not taken any provisional measure or
adopted a definitive decision, and that the contested system is
therefore still being applied, even though it was accepted by
the Commission from the start of the procedure that it was
not consistent with Community law.

Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-42/01)

(2001/C 118/113)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B., established in
Brussels, represented by Luc Misson, Laurent Denis and
Patrick Mbaya Kapita, Avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
measures within a reasonable time following the appli-
cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
No 17;

— Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the
necessary measures within one month against the parties
complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant
to Regulation No 17;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant states that on 1 July 1997 it lodged a complaint
on the basis of Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 39 EC and 81 EC) concerning the transfer system for
professional football players applied by organisations such as
FIFA, URBSFA and the Ligue professionelle de Football de
under
Belgique.
No IV/36.583-SETCA-FGTB/FIFA, URBSFA, the Commission
initiated a procedure against FIFA.

complaint,

Following

registered

that

Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
Rateau against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-43/01)

(2001/C 118/114)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
Rateau, residing in Beersel
(Belgium), represented by Eric
Boigelot, avocat, address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority to assign
the applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, to the post
of adviser on consumer information working to the Head
of Unit Health and Consumer Protection SANCO.D.4
‘Food law and biotechnology’, as it emerges from the
organisational chart for DG SANCO of 15 June 2000 and
the explicit decision adopted on 1 August 2000 by
Mr Robert Coleman, Director General of the Directorate-
General ‘Consumer policy and consumer health protec-
tion’, brought to the applicant’s notice on 28 August
2000;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as compen-
sation for non-material damage, BEF 1 as provisional
damages in respect of injury assessed at BEF 10 000,
subject to increase or decrease in the course of proceed-
ings;

— in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.