Case T-417/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Fédération Internationale des Maisons de l'Europe (FIME) against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, EU office or agency, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fraud against the EU, redemption

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/25

The applicant submits that the Council failed to determine the
normal value in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner
within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/
96 (1), as modified, and in conformity with its duty of due care.
The Commission, who initiated an anti-dumping procedure
under Article 5 of the Regulation, should not have ignored the
anti-dumping rule according to which costs of by-products
should not be taken into account, but instead should be
deducted, in the normal value determination, in order to meet
the need for a normal value determined in an appropriate and
not unreasonable manner. According to the applicant, the
Commission was aware of the difference between the costs of
production related to the production of para-cresol, on the
one hand, and the costs of production related specifically to
the by-products (sodium sulfite and mixed phenol), on the
other hand. By extending the scope of the investigation to the
two by-products and by taking into account the by-products
in the normal value determination, the Commission violated
the duty of due diligence.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to
respect the duty of good administration and that it violated
Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 by failing to calculate
a normal value for the like product only.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22.12.1995 on protection
against dumped imports from countries not members of the
European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis
against the European Parliament

(Case T-416/03)

(2004/C 59/41)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis, resident
in
Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the
European Parliament taken on 4 March 2003 definitively
adopting the applicant’s staff report for 2001;

the Secretary General of

— annul that staff report for 2001;

— annul

the implied decision to reject

the applicant’s
complaint submitted on 27 May 2003 in accordance
with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and seeking
the annulment of the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
EUR 20 000 assessed on an equitable basis, subject to
increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, in
respect of damages for non-material harm and harm to
his career, on the basis both of substantial irregularities
and of significant delay in the writing of the 2001 report
in a particularly distressing period for the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with
Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims, firstly, a breach of Articles 26 and 43 of
the Staff Regulations, of the general provisions for giving effect
to Article 43 as adopted by the Bureau of the European
Parliament on 8 March 1999 and of the instructions relating
to the procedure for the writing of staff reports.

He also pleads misuse of powers and infringement of general
principles of law, such as respect for the rights of the defence,
the principle of good administration, the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to have
regard for the welfare of officials, the principle of equal
treatment and those general principles requiring the AIPN to
take a decision only on the basis of legally permissible grounds,
namely those which are pertinent and not tainted by a manifest
error of assessment, fact or law.

Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Fédération
Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe (FIME) against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-417/03)

(2004/C 59/42)

(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 December 2003 by Fédération
Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe, established in Saar-
brücken (Germany), represented by Pierre Soler-Couteaux,
lawyer.

C 59/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 9 October 2003,

Commission applied set-off
ground that the decision is wrong in law;

in which the
in two respects, on the

— rule that the European Commission is liable in respect of

three wrongful acts or omissions:

— by offending against the principles of legitimate

expectations and good faith;

— by continually failing thereafter to observe the

contractual time-limits for payment of the grants;

— by failing to fulfil its obligation under Article 155 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 211 EC) to ensure that
the measures taken by it are applied, and by failing
to perform public functions or duties in that there
have been material omissions on its part and an
unlawful failure to fulfil
its duty to act and to
monitor the proper use of Community funds;

— rule that these omissions have caused loss to FIME for

which the Commission is liable to make compensation;

— rule that the applicant, FIME, has suffered non-pecuniary
damage amounting to EUR 300 000 and order payment
of that amount, together with interest for late payment;

— rule that the applicant, FIME, has suffered pecuniary loss
amounting to EUR 210 000 and order payment of that
amount, together with interest for late payment;

— order

the Commission to pay to it

the sum of

EUR 10 000 in respect of irrecoverable expenditure;

— order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission has applied set-off
in two respects to the operating grant due to the applicant for
the year 2003, first, in deducting the overpayment for the year
2002, and, secondly, in recovering the grants paid, through
FIME, to one of its members, namely Maison de l’Europe
Avignon Méditerranée, in respect of projects that the latter had
failed to complete.

Following an inquiry by the European Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF), which established that Maison de l’Europe Avignon
Méditerranée had failed to complete certain projects for
which it had received grants and that it had accordingly
misappropriated Community funds (1), the Commission took
the view that these grants fell to be repaid to it by the applicant.

In support of its application for annulment, the applicant
argues that the decision to apply set-off to the overpayment of
the subsidy for the year 2002 was in breach of the principles
of legitimate expectations and of good administration, in that
the Commission had led the applicant to expect that it could
cover losses arising through some of its projects by using its
own funds and subscriptions from its members, without
thereby rendering this expenditure ineligible.

The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the
obligation to state reasons for the contested decision.

It also argues that it is not required to repay to the Commission
the sums allegedly misappropriated by Maison de l’Europe
Avignon Méditerranée, as it did not breach its duties of
supervision and monitoring in any way. It accordingly submits
that the contested decision has no legal basis and contains a
manifest error of assessment.

Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of good
administration and the duty to exercise care in that the
Commission failed to give full consideration to the matter in
question.

In support of its claim for damages, the applicant claims that
the Commission committed three errors which have caused
the applicant unavoidable loss and damage, both pecuniary
and non-pecuniary. The failures for which the Commission is
alleged to be responsible are breach of
the principle of
legitimate expectations already considered in the context of
the application for annulment, failure to observe contractual
time-limits for the payment of grants and inadequate scrutiny
of the use of funds provided by the applicant.

(1) See also Case T-43/03 Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée
v Commission, published in OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 39, and
Case T-100/03 Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée v
Commission, published in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 46.