Case T-255/01: Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, electronics industry, lighting equipment

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

In support of his claim, he relies on the following pleas:

concerning a proceeding pursuant

— annul the decision of the Commission of 16 August
2001 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain
documents
to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/37.919) relating
to bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro
zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank AG) — on the wider
application of access to files under Article 8 of Com-
mission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001
on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain
competition proceedings;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in T-216/01 Reisebank AG v Commission.

— the vacancy notice was drawn up in vague terms,
inasmuch as it does not make it possible to discern with
any certainty the conditions for taking part
in the
appointment procedure.

— the candidate who was finally appointed does not meet,
according to his curriculum vitae published on the
internet, the minimum requirements for selection and for
being considered a suitable candidate.

— the defendant, according to its own interpretation of the
rules of
the Court adopted by Decision No 18/97,
refused him access to certain document regarding the
appointment procedure.

Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro
against Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou
Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang
Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the
European Union

(Case T-254/01)

(2002/C 3/64)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case T-255/01)

(2002/C 3/65)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe
Di Pietro, represented by Giovanni Monforte, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of the
European Communities of 22 February 2001 whereby it
decided to ‘appoint’ Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary
General of the Court;

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the
applicant and to make good the damage suffered by him.

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong
Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon
Group Co., Ltd., represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and
Mr Filip Ragolle of Stanbrook Hooper, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July
2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of
fluorescent
integrated electronic compact
lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of
China in so far as it applies to the applicants;

The applicant opposes the appointment of a Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors.

— order the Council to pay the costs.

C 3/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants are both Chinese producers of electronic
compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) and export those lamps to
the European Community.

On 17 May 2000, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping
proceeding concerning imports of CFL-i originating in China,
after the lodging by the European Lighting Companies Feder-
ation of a complaint. During the anti-dumping investigation.
Mexico was used, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic
Regulation, as the analogue market economy country for the
purposes of determining the normal value of exports from
China.

The applicants co-operated during the investigation and were
granted individual
treatment The dumping margins were
therefore determined using the normal value of the export
prices of Philips Mexicana , a subsidiary of one of the primary
complainants, as well as the normal value of the applicants’
export prices.

In support of their claims, the applicants submit that, by
adopting the Commission’s findings, the Council infringed the
basic anti-dumping Regulation, in that the Commission should
have used Article 2(7)(b) and not 2(7)(a) of that Regulation.
Alternatively,
the normal value
determined under Article 2(7)(a) was manifestly unreasonable
and discriminatory.

the applicants argue that

Action brought on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Touristik
the Office for Harmonisation in the
GmbH against

Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-257/01)

(2002/C 3/66)

— amend the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001 concerning appeal
No R 789/1999-2 so that it states that there are no
grounds under Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation on the
Community trade mark for refusing to register the
Community trade mark AIR MARITIME under appli-
cation No 81.331;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001
concerning appeal No R 789/1999-2 and order the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to continue the
registration procedure relating to the Community trade
mark AIR MARITIME under registration No 81.331
without regard to the opposing trade mark,
i.e. the
German Trade Mark Wz 1.186.278 ‘air marin’, and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark
applied for:

The word mark ‘AIR MARITIME’
for goods and services in Class 16,
39 and 42 — Application
No 81.331

the case:

(Language of
to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the
application was drafted: German)

Proprietor of the oppos-
ing right to a trade mark
or sign:

Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH

Opposing right to trade
mark or sign:

The German word mark ‘air mar-
in’ for services in Class 39

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Tour-
istik GmbH, Munich, represented by Hans Georg Zeiner and
Brigitte Heamann-Dunn, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, the other party before the Board of Appeal
being Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH, Bonn (Germany).

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

services

Rejection of the application for
the
agency;
arrangement and organisation of
travel;
in
Class 39

transport of persons’

‘travel