Case T-107/04: Actionbrought on 16 March 2004 by Aluminium SiliconMill Products GmbH against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of Europe, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, semi-metal

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/85

Action brought on 15 March 2004 by Peter Ritzmann
against Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-103/04)

(2004/C 106/166)

— annul the Commission decision, notified to the applicant by
letter dated 29 December 2003, not to proceed with the
decision for a marketing authorisation of Omnitrop;

(Language of the case: French)

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 March 2004 by Peter Ritzmann,
residing in Trier (Germany), represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant invokes the same pleas in law and main argu-
ments as in Case T-15/04 SANDOZ/Commission (1).

— annul the decision reducing the points awarded in respect
of merit to the applicant for the assessment period 2001 –
2002;

(1) Not yet published.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant began his career at the Commission as a member
of the temporary staff and was subsequently appointed as an
official during the transitional assessment period 2001-2002.

According to the applicant, although he had been awarded a
certain number of merit points by his assessor and counter-
signing officer and the time he had served in the relevant grade
had been taken into account with effect from the day on which
he was engaged as a member of
the
Commission decided to reduce his merit points substantially
and to take account of his merits only in respect of his time
served as an official.

the temporary staff,

In support of his action, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations

and of the general rules implementing those articles;

— breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimi-

nation;

— breach of the principle of proportionality.

Action brought on 12 March 2004 by Sandoz GmbH
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-105/04)

(2004/C 106/167)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 March 2004 by Sandoz GmbH,
Kundl (Austria), represented by C. Thomas and N. Dagg, Solici-
tors, and B. Oosting, lawyer.

Action brought on 16 March 2004 by Aluminium Silicon
Mill Products GmbH against the Council of the European
Union

(Case T-107/04)

(2004/C 106/168)

(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 March 2004 by Aluminium Silicon Mill
Products, Zug, Switzerland, represented by Mr A. Willems and
Mr L. Ruessmann, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 to the
imposes duties on exports by SKU and ZAO

extent
it
Kremny

— Order the Council the pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments:

contested measure, Council Regulation

(EC) No.
The
2229/2003 (1),
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of silicon originating in Russia and as part of that
imposed a 22.7 % duty on silicon originating from two related
Russian producers, SUAL- Kremny-Ural and ZAO Kremny. The
applicant imports silicon metal from these two producers, for
sale to customers located in the European Community, and on
this basis requests the annulment of the contested measure.

C 106/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

committed a manifest

In support of its application the applicant contends that the
Council
error of assessment and
infringed Articles 1 paragraph 4 and article 6 paragraph 7 of
Regulation 384/1996 (1), since the contested measure ignores
the significance of
the distinct product characteristics and
distinct end uses of chemical and metallurgical silicon metals.
The applicant further contends that the Council failed to state
reasons in connection with the determination of the export
price as well as the finding that between 1998 and 2000 the
injury indicators developed positively. According to the appli-
cant the latter finding also infringes Article 3.4 of the WTO
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 3 paragraph 5 of Regu-
lation 384/1996. The applicant also contends that the Council
failed to state its reasons for concluding that a causal
link
between the allegedly dumped imports in question and the
injury had been established, committed a manifest error of
assessment in relation to this finding and infringed Article 3
paragraphs 2, 6 and 7 of Regulation 384/1996 and Articles
3.1 and 3.5 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The appli-
cant finally submits that the Council violated Article 3 para-
graph 3 of Regulation 384/1996 in connexion with the use of
underselling as the methodology for calculating injury elimina-
tion level, and failed to state adequate reasons for doing so.

(1) Official Journal L 339 , 24/12/2003 P. 3 - 13.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community, Official Journal L 056 , 06/03/1996 P.
1 - 20.

Action brought on 12 March 2003 by Nikolaus Steininger
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-108/04)

(2004/C 106/169)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 March 2003 by Nikolaus Stei-
ninger, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 8 May 2003 to
reduce the applicant's merit points following his changes of
status from member of the temporary staff falling within
the research budget to that of an official falling within the
operating budget;

— in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Commis-
sion of 24 November 2003 rejecting the applicant's
complaint (R/401/03);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant joined the Commission as a member of the
temporary staff. Upon success in an internal competition, the
applicant was appointed probationary official.

According to the applicant, for the report on the development
of career covering the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December
2002, the applicant's head of unit drew up a report awarding
him several merit points. Subsequently, those merit points were
reduced in proportion to the time served as an official, that is
to say 2.5 months out of a total of 18 months, which is equiva-
lent to an 86 % reduction.

In support of his application the applicant alleges:

— the objection provided for in Article 4.4 of the general
provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations
is not applicable;

— the objection provided for in Article 4.4 of the general
provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations
is not valid;

— breach of the principle that legitimate expectations and of

the principle of proportionality.

Action brought on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira
the European
Wandschneider against Commission of

Communities

(Case T-110/04)

(2004/C 106/170)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira
Wandschneider, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the report on the development of career in respect of
the reference period running from 1 July 2001 to 31
December 2002;