Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2004 in Case T-303/04 R, European Dynamics SA v Commission of the European Communities (Public service contracts — Community tender procedure — Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Urgency — None)
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administration of the Institutions, award of contract, invitation to tender, services contract, software

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

1. There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal

2. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

Action brought on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited
and Graphite India Limited against the Council of the
European Union

(Case T-462/04)

(2005/C 69/34)

(Language of the case: English)

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 10 November 2004

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited, New
Delhi, India and Graphite India Limited, Kolkata, India, repre-
sented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer and J. Branton, Soli-
citor.

in Case T-303/04 R, European Dynamics SA v Commission
of the European Communities

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(Public service contracts — Community tender procedure —
Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation
— Urgency — None)

(2005/C 69/33)

(Language of the case: English)

the European Communities

In Case T-303/04 R, European Dynamics SA, established in
lawyer, against
Athens (Greece), represented by S. Pappas,
(Agents:
Commission of
L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, and J. Stuyck,
lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspen-
sion of operation of, first, the Commission's decision of 4 June
2004 (DIGIT/R2/CTR/mas D(2004) 324)
to rank only in
second place the offer submitted by the consortium of which
the applicant is a member following a call for tenders for the
provision of informatics services and, second, the Commission's
decision of 14 July 2004 (DG DIGIT/R2/CTR/mas D(2004)
811) rejecting the applicant's complaints of 21 June, 1, 5 and 8
July 2004 against the award of the contract to another consor-
tium — the President of the Court of First Instance has made
an order on 10 November 2004, the operative part of which is
as follows:

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

— declare, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that Council Regu-
lation Council Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 (1) of 13
September 2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in
India is null and void;

— declare, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1629/2004 (2) of 13 September 2004
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defi-
nitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain
graphite electrode systems originating in India is null and
void;

— order the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be

borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following complaints introduced on behalf of Community
producers of graphite electrodes,
the Commission initiated
parallel anti-subsidy and anti-dumping proceedings against
imports of the product concerned from India. These proceed-
ings led to the adoption of the contested regulation.

The applicants are two Indian companies which manufacture
and export the product concerned to the European Union. In
support of their application they submit first of all that the
Commission services and finally the Council failed to investi-
gate other obvious sources of injury, namely dumped imports
from other third countries, even when presented with strong
evidence of them by Indian exporters. On this basis the appli-
cants invoke a violation of Article 9 paragraph 5 of Regulation
384/96 (3) and of Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Agreement on
the GATT (Anti-dumping
Implementation of Article VI of
agreement), a violation of the principle of non-discrimination
and of fundamental procedural requirements and a manifest
error of assessment.