Case T-110/04: Actionbrought on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneideragainst Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), staff assessment

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;

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/87

— in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appli-

cant's complaint of 11 July 2003;

— order the defendant to pay damages and compensation for
the material and non-material damage suffered by the appli-
cant ex aequo et bono of up to EUR 2 500;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is challenging the validity of
his progress report (rapport d'évolution de carrière (REC)) in
respect of the reference period running form 1 July 2001 to 31
December 2002.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Article 43 of

its
general implementing provisions and the Guide to Assess-
ment;

the Staff Regulations,

— breach of the duty to provide reasons and the existence, in
the present case, of a manifest error of assessment and
misuse of powers;

— failure to observe the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials and breach of the principle of sound administra-
tion;

— breach of the rights of defence and failure to observe the
time-limits laid down in the relevant provisions of the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk Alumi-
nium Plant against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-111/04)

(2004/C 106/171)

(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 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk Aluminium
Plant, Bratsk, Russia, represented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos,
lawyer and Mr J. Branton,Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 of 22
December 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on

imports of silicon originating in Russia, published on 24
December 2003 in the Official
Journal of the European
Union, OJ L 339, 24/12/2003, p. 3, insofar as it relates to
the applicant

— Order that all the costs occasioned by these proceedings be

borne by the defendant.

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 in Russia. The
applicant, a Russian company producing silicon, requests the
annulment of this application.

In support of its application the applicant contends that the
Council violated article 2 paragraphs 8 and 9 of Regulation
384/1996 (2), committed a manifest error of assessment and
breached a fundamental procedural requirement by failing to
accept that the applicant and its trader in the British Virgin
Islands are related. The applicant further contends that it was
denied its right to a fair hearing since the Council failed to
conduct an additional verification visit in respect to that allega-
the Council also violated
tion. According to the applicant
Article 18 paragraph 4 of
regulation 384/1996 when it
rejected evidence supplied by the applicant. The applicant also
invokes a violation of article 20 paragraph 4 of Regulation
384/1996 consisting in the Council's failure to provide a
proper statement of the essential facts and considerations on
the basis of which it was proposed to impose definitive
measures. The applicant finally submits that the contested regu-
lation mistakenly considered the applicant's domestic sales as
unprofitable and inflated the assessment of dumping, by
rejecting the applicant's electricity costs and adjusting them
upwards by reference to irrelevant factors. On this basis the
applicant contends
the contested regulation violated
Article 2 paragraphs 5 and 7 (b and c) of Regulation
384/1996, committed a manifest error of assessment and failed
to state proper reasons.

that

(1) Official Journal L 339 , 24/12/2003 P. 3-13.
(2) 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.