Case T-33/06: Action brought on  19 January 2006  — Zenab v Commission
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual programme, indemnification

C 74/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1892/2005 (1) of 14
November 2005 terminating the partial interim review of
the anti-dumping measures applicable
to imports of
bicycles originating in the People's Republic of china,
insofar as

— it rejects the applicant's market economy status (‘MES’)

claim;

— it violates Article 253 EC inasmuch as it fails to state
the reasons for which the applicant's MES claim was
rejected; and

— it breaches the WTO law by applying post

factum
market economy criteria to Chinese exporting produ-
cers ion some EC Member States; and

— order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a limited company incorporated under Chinese
law, mainly produces bicycles and parts thereof, exporting to
It contests Regulation 1892/2005 which
the Community.
terminated the partial
the anti-dumping
measures applicable on imports of bicycles originating in the
People's Republic of China.

interim review of

In support of its application, the applicant invokes first of all
the same allegations of violation of Council Regulation 384/96
(‘the basic regulation’) and of Article 253 EC it had previously
invoked in the context of Case T-372/05 (2).

further alleges that

the contested Regulation
The applicant
breaches World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’)
it
applies market economy criteria to Chinese exporters in five
Member States whose anti-dumping legislation did not provide
for such criteria at the time of China's accession to the WTO.

law in that

(1) OJ L 302, 19/11/2005, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 315, 10/12/2005, p. 17.

Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Zenab v Commis-
sion

(Case T-33/06)

(2006/C 74/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Zenab SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.
Windey, P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities dated 9 November 2005 under reference
648599;

— hold the Community liable for non-contractual damage and
order the Commission to pay the applicant (i) the sum of
EUR 36 707 as damages in respect of the costs incurred
the
for the purposes of the call
amount of the non-pecuniary loss because of damage to
reputation and the material loss resulting from the delay in
the execution of
the EuroVOD project and appoint an
expert to assess that loss, as determined by an expert to be
appointed by the Court;

for proposals, and (ii)

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks the annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion of 9 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's application
for Community financial support within the framework of the
MEDIA Plus programme (Call for Proposals INFSO/MEDIA/04/
05), as well as compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by
it because of the adoption of the contested decision.

In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on
two pleas in law. The first plea alleges unlawful delegation of
its powers by the Commission to the technical consultation
group appointed to determine the application for financial
support submitted by the applicant.

As part of the second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the
Commission made manifest errors of assessment which, in its
submission, justify the annulment of the contested decision. In
the alternative, the applicant claims that the reasoning set out
in the contested decision is insufficient and contradictory and
does not enable the grounds justifying the rejection of
its
proposal to be understood.

For the purposes of the action for damages, the applicant seeks,
relying on the principle of the non-contractual liability of the
the loss allegedly suffered
Community, compensation for
because of
its proposal
the erroneous determination of
submitted within the framework of the call for proposals in
question. The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to
comply with its duty of diligence and sound administration and
that such conduct constitutes a serious breach of Community
law justifying the engagement of the Community's liability.