Case T-139/02: Action brought on 29 April 2002 by the public limited company Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, the Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis and the Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Community support framework, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), financing, private sector, public institution, vocational training

C 169/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

Communities on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink Inter-
national Co. Ltd., represented by Mr Paul Waer of Vermulst
Waer & Verhaeghe, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) no 215/2002
of 28 January 2002 in so far as it imposes an anti-
dumping duty on Nanjing Metalink International Co.
Ltd.;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a company in the People’s Republic of China
producing ferro molybdenum. In the contested Decision (1),
the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports
of ferro molybdenum originating from China.

The applicant states that it was granted Market Economy
Treatment in the Regulation imposing a provisional duty (2),
which resulted in a reduced anti-dumping duty for the
applicant. This treatment was revoked in the contested
Decision. The applicant claims that by revoking the Market
Economy Treatment which was granted on the basis of the
same investigation, the Council breached Article 2(7) (c) of
Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96 (3). According to the
follow the procedures
applicant,
prescribed in Regulation 384/96 for
the revocation of
Market Economy Treatment. Instead, the initial determination
made should have remained in force until a new investigation
was conducted.

the Council did not

Secondly, the applicant submits that by revoking the grant of
Market Economy Treatment, the Council exceeded its powers
under Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96. According to the
applicant, the Council does not have the power to revoke a
grant of Market Economy Treatment without instituting a
fresh investigation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2002 of 28 January 2002
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ferro
molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ
L 35, 6.2.2002, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1612/2001 of 3 August 2001
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro
molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ
L 214, 8.8.2001, p. 3).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 April 2002 by the public limited
company Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis
N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes
Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, the Panellinia Enosi
Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis and the
Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epangelmatikis Ekpai-
defsis kai Katartisis against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-139/02)

(2002/C 169/71)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 April 2002 by Idiotiko Institou-
to Epangelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnoris-
menes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, a public
limited company whose seat is in Athens, the Panellinia Enosi
Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis, whose seat
is in Athens, and the Panellinia Enosi
Idiotikis Technikis
Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis, whose seat is in
Athens, represented by Th. Antoniou and Kh. Tsiliotis, of the
Athens Bar.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— allow the application;

— annul

the contested decision of 27 February 2002
adopted by the Directorate-General for Employment and
Social Affairs of the Commission with the objective of
invalidating the unlawful refusal of the Commission —
for the reasons set out in the grounds of the application —
to remove the unlawful distinction between private and
public vocational training bodies so far as concerns the
financing exclusively of the latter by the third Community
support framework and, in particular, by the operational
programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training II’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of provisions of Council Regulation

No 1260/1999.

— Infringement of provisions of primary law.

— Infringement of the principle of equality laid down by

Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty.

— Infringement of the principle of subsididarity.