Case T-462/04: Action brought on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited and Graphite India Limited against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, GATT, India, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, electrical equipment, price agreement

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.

C 69/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

The applicants further submit that both contested regulations
are vitiated by the infringement of
fundamental procedural
requirements provided by Regulation 2026/97 (4) and Regu-
lation 384/96 respectively as well as by the Anti-dumping
agreement and the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing
measures, having imposed anti-dumping and countervailing
measures on the basis of a Community of 25 Member States
even though the investigation was initiated and conducted on
the basis of a 15 Member States.

Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-466/04)

(2005/C 69/35)

The applicants also contend that Regulation 1628/2004
imposes countervailing duties in inappropriate amounts in
respect of the Indian DEPB post-export scheme thus violating
Regulation 2026/97, the Agreement on subsidies and counter-
vailing measures and the principle of proportionality, commit-
ting a manifest error of assessment and breaching fundamental
procedural requirements.

The applicants also invoke violations of Regulations 2026/97
and 384/96 respectively, of the anti-dumping agreement and
the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures, as
well as a manifest error of assessment, contending that the
contested measures base material injury determination on data
made unreliable by the existence of anti-competitive market
sharing and price fixing agreements between the members of
the Community industry, confirmed and sanctioned by a deci-
sion of the Commission itself.

(Language in which the application was submitted: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19
November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami, residing in Milan (Italy),
represented by Paolo Guido Beduschi and Silvia Giudici,
lawyers.

The Stilton Cheese Makers Association was also a party to the
proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— establish that the letter of 4 June 2004, sent to the Office
and signed jointly does not contain a statement intended to
bring an end to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal, but is only an application for a stay of proceedings;

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office of 20 September 2004 in Case R 973/2002-2 and
refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

the applicants contend that

Finally,
the contested measures
respectively violate Article 3 paragraph 2 of Regulation 384/96
and Article 8 paragraph 7 of Regulation 2026/97 in failing to
remove the effects of other factors in determining its final
injury analysis and thereby attributing injury caused by other
factors to Indian imports.

— order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 295, 18.9.2004, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 295, 18.9.2004, p. 10.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community, OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protec-
tion against subsidized imports from countries not members of the
European Community, OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

The applicant

goods

mark
for

‘GERONIMO
Word
STILTON’
and/or
services in Class 16 (books etc.),
Class 25 (clothing etc.), Class 28
(games etc.), Class 29 (meat etc.),
Class 30 (cake dough etc.) and
Class 41 (services rendered in the
field of education etc.) – Applica-
tion No 1345503