Case T-498/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co., Ltd against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, chemical industry, herbicide, international trade

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/35

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Zhejiang Xinan
Chemical Industrial Group Co., Ltd against the Council of
the European Union

— annul the decision adopted by the General Secretariat of the
Council of the European Union rejecting the two tenders
entered by the applicant under call for tenders UCA 033/04
for the award of a contract for cleaning and maintenance
services of two office buildings in Brussels;

— order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 1 481 317.65
together with interest, calculated at the rate of 7 % per
annum, from the date on which the present action was
brought, expressly subject to future increase, reduction or
determination;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case, a company specialising in
the cleaning of offices which has been responsible since 1
January 1998 for the cleaning of certain offices of the General
Secretariat of the Council, challenges the rejection by the defen-
dant of two tenders submitted by the applicant in respect of a
tender relating to the conclusion of a contract for cleaning and
general services to be performed in the ‘Woluwe Heights’ (lot
1) and ‘Frère Orban’ (lot 2) buildings.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
assessment in that, in order to reject the tender relating to
lot 1, the defendant claims that the average hourly rate
under that tender is less than the minimum wage laid down
by the Union générale belge du nettoyage (Belgian General
Cleaning Union) for category 1A, on 1 July 2004, whereas
a precise analysis of the figures in the applicant's tender
shows that the average hourly rate thereunder is above the
minimum figure set by the Union générale belge du
nettoyage;

— infringement of the principles of sound administration and
non-discrimination and the existence in the present case of
a manifest error of assessment in that the tender relating to
lot 2 was rejected, without further consideration, on the
sole ground that the total number of hours of work under
that tender was less by more than 12.5 % than the average
number of hours under the other tenders received for the
contract in question, whereas by using that criterion the
contested decision favours the most expensive tenders
providing for invoicing of an elevated number of hours,
without any objective purpose.

(Case T-498/04)

(2005/C 57/60)

(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 23 December 2004 by Zhejiang Xinan
Chemical
Jiande City (People's
Republic of China), represented by D. Horovitz, lawyer with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

Industrial Group Co., Ltd,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the contested Regulation in so far as it

concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant in the

present proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1683/2004 of 24 September 2004 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the
People's Republic of China (1), insofar as it concerns the appli-
cant. The applicant submits that the Community institutions
failed to apply properly the market economy treatment test to
it.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes a manifest
error of assessment in the application of Article 2(7)(c) of Regu-
lation No 384/96 (2), as amended.

The applicant claims that the Council did not state in the
contested regulation that there has been significant state inter-
ference in the applicant's business decisions. Also, the Council
did not apply, according to the applicant, the right threshold to
assess whether the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) were fulfilled.
The applicant contests that the alleged right of the state to
intervene in the company's business decisions, without any
materialisation or exercise of that alleged right, was a factor
from which it could be inferred that
the first criterion of
Article 2(7)(c) was not fulfilled. The applicant submits further-
more that the evidence supplied clearly established that the
applicant's decisions on prices, costs and inputs responded to
market signals reflecting supply and demand, and that there
was no state interference in this regard.

C 57/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.3.2005

Second, the applicant invokes the failure to comply with para-
graph 6 of annex II of the WTO's anti-dumping agreement and
with Article 18(4) of Regulation No 384/96, as well as with the
obligation to protect the applicant's legal rights. The applicant
claims that its legal and procedural rights were infringed by not
informing it of the reasons for the rejection of its evidence, by
failing to grant it an opportunity to provide further information
and by failing to publish the reasons for the rejection of the
representations that the applicant made.

Finally, the applicant invokes a violation of its legitimate expec-
tations in that the Community institutions failed to come to an
expeditious conclusion on the claim for market economy status
of the applicant.

3. order the office and the intervening party, Steninge Slott
AB, to pay all the costs of the dispute before the Court of
First
including those relating to the procedure
before the Second Board of Appeal.

Instance,

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Steninge Slott AB

Community trade mark
concerned:

Word mark ‘STENINGE SLOTT’
for products in class 21 (design
products of glass etc.)

(1) OJ L 303, p. 1
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1)

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

The applicant

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Hammarplast
AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-499/04)

(2005/C 57/61)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23
December 2004 by Hammarplast, established in Tingsryd
(Sweden), represented by R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer.

Steninge Slott AB, established in Märsta (Sweden), was also a
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

National
KERAMIK’
same class

mark
for products

‘STENINGE
in the

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Refusal of registration

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Appeal allowed

Violation of Article 8 paragraph 1
b) of Regulation 40/94 (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)

Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane
Lopparelli against Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-502/04)

(2005/C 57/62)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

1. annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the

OHIM of 25 October 2004 in case R 394/2003-2;

2. order the office to refuse the registration of

the term
STENINGE SLOTT as a Community trade mark in respect of
the goods in class 21 for which registration has been
accepted;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane
Lopparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A.
Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.