Case T-364/03: Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, import, leather, originating product

C 21/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2004

The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 253 EC.
According to the applicant,
the Commission has not
adequately set out the reasons why the transitional rule in
Article 2 of the contested decision must be restricted to
undertakings in respect of which the tax authority had taken a
decision as at 11 July 2001.

(1) 2003/515/EC: Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the
State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).

Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM
KG against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-364/03)

(2004/C 21/77)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf
against Europol

(Case T-355/03)

(2004/C 21/76)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 16 October
2003 by Andreas Mausolf, resident in Leiden (Netherlands),
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. de Casparis.

An action against The Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG,
Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany, represented by Dr Robert
MacLean, Solicitor with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

that, pursuant

to the second paragraph of
Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the Council of Ministers of
the European Union is liable for the damage caused to
the Applicant and order the Council to pay damages to
the Applicant for the sum of 89 286 EUR in interest and
the sum of 81 079 EUR in legal costs of the administrative
procedure, or whatever sums the Court decides appro-
priate;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of

the procedure.

1)

2)

annul the implicit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
complaint challenging the decision of 2 January 2003
and also to annul the decision of 2 January 2003;

order Europol to pay compensation to Andreas Mausolf,
including in any event the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision not to award him an extra
step with effect from 1 July 2002.

The applicant submits that the contested decision contains an
inadequate statement of reasons and thereby conflicts with the
general principle that decisions must state the reasons on
which they are based.

The applicant is a company dealing in leather handbags. In
the course of its business it regularly imported handbags
manufactured by a company based in the People’s Republic of
China. Council Regulation EC 1567/971 (1) imposed a defini-
tive anti-dumping duty on imports of
leather handbags
originating in that country. That Regulation was later amended
by Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November
1998 (2) which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty rate of
0 % on the handbags imported by the applicant.

However, this provision was not given retroactive effect and
consequently duties paid by the applicant until then were not
refunded.

24.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/37

The applicant brought an application before the Court of First
Instance (3) seeking the annulment of Regulation No 2380/98
insofar as the Council failed to give retroactive effect to the
above amendment. By judgement dated 29 June 2000 (4) the
Court of First Instance annulled the contested provision.
Thereafter the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 133/2001
of 22 January 2001 (5) amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97
and granting retroactive effect to the provision in question. All
of the applicant’s payments of duties imposed by Regulation
No 1567/97 were refunded to it.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the appointing authority’s decision of 11 March
2003 not to accept the applicant’s candidature for the
post of Director in the Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean,
Pacific’ (AIDCO.C), as a result of the appointing auth-
ority’s decision of 8 January 2003 to appoint another
person to that post;

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

By its present action the applicant seeks to obtain compen-
sation in the form of interest on the amounts of import duty
which it initially paid and which were later refunded to it, as
well as in the form of legal expenses it incurred in the course
of administrative proceedings before the Commission and the
German customs authorities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority’s
rejection of his candidature for the post of Director in the
Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ (AIDCO.C).

In support of its application the applicant submits that the
Council acted illegally in refusing to abide by the consequences
of the review findings leading to Regulation 2380/98 and that
this illegal behaviour was of sufficient gravity as to give rise to
liability under Article 288 EC.

In support of his claims, he alleges infringement of Article 7,
of the second paragraph of Article 25, and Articles 29(1)(a) and
45(1) of the Staff Regulations, irregularity in the administrative
procedure prior to the contested decision, and disregard of
general legal principles, such as the protection of legitimate
expectations, equal treatment and career progression.

(1) OJ L 208, 2.8.1997, p. 31-43.
(2) OJ L 296 , 5.11.1998, p. 1-5.
(3) Case no T-7/99, notified in OJ C 86, 27.3.1999, p. 23.
(4) Notified in OJ C 259, 9.9.2000, p. 17.
(5) OJ L 23, 25.1.2001, p. 9.

In that regard, the applicant submits, in particular, that his
candidature was not considered fairly and that he was not, at
the very least, short listed without any statement of reasons,
although the appointing authority had recognised his abilities
for A2 post of Director AIDCO. Furthermore, the appointing
authority subsequently established criteria not set out in the
vacancy notice.

Finally, the appointing authority made a manifest error of
assessment in the comparison of the candidates’ respective
merits.

Action brought on 5 November 2003 by Jacques Wunen-
burger against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-370/03)

(2004/C 21/78)

(Language of the Case: French)

Action brought on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci
against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-371/03)

(2004/C 21/79)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 November 2003 by Jacques
Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by
E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci,
Brussels, (Belgium), represented by B. van de Wal and E. Oude
Elferink, lawyers.