Case T-17/06: Action brought on  23 January 2006  — Giant (China) v Council
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, import, market economy, two-wheeled vehicle

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission exempted the mate-
rial DecaBDE in polymeric applications from the prohibition
contained in Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the
use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic
equipment (2) (‘the basic directive’).

The Danish Government submits that the contested decision is
defective in law inasmuch as DecaBDE in polymeric applica-
tions is exempted from the prohibition in the basic directive,
contrary to the conditions laid down therein, on the grounds
that

— such an exemption is not necessary in the light of scientific

and technical progress;

— the Commission did not exempt a specific application of
the material from the prohibition but in practice introduced
an across-the-board exemption for all polymeric applica-
tions;

— the Commission failed to record that no possibilities for
substituting or eliminating DecaBDE in polymeric applica-
tions have been found, which the Danish Government
submits it ought to have done; and

— the Commission did not carry out an assessment to deter-
mine whether the negative burden in terms of environment,
health and/or consumer protection which would result
from substitution would be greater
than the potential
advantages
environment, health and/or
in terms of
consumer protection.

The Danish Government also submits that the Commission
attached weight to an unlawful criterion, namely a general risk
assessment of the exempted material DecaBDE, and that the
decision is vitiated by a fundamental formal defect inasmuch as
the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons as to why it
took the view that the conditions for exempting DecaBDE in
polymeric applications from the prohibition in the basic direc-
tive had been satisfied.

(1) OJ 2005 L 271, p. 48.
(2) OJ 2003 L 37, p. 19.

Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Mopro-Nord
GmbH v Commission

(Case T-6/06)

(2006/C 74/54)

Language of the case: German

— annul paragraphs 25 to 27 of the defendant's decision on
State aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005
C 262, p. 5) in so far as they are based on assertions made
by the German authorities that expenditure incurred before
the Commission approved this individually notifiable aid,
relating to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is
not eligible for aid;

— in the alternative, annul the defendant's decision on State
aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005 C
262, p. 5) in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision,

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2005) 3310
final of 6 September 2005 relating to State aid No N 363/
2005 for the construction of a whey refining plant. The benefi-
that aid is Mopro-Nord GmbH in Mecklenburg-
ciary of
Vorpommern.
the Commission
informed the Federal Republic of Germany that the aid notified
by it is EC-compatible. The applicant contests the decision in
particular in so far as it is based on assertions made by the
German authorities
incurred before the
that expenditure
Commission approved this individually notifiable aid, relating
to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is not eligible
for aid.

In support of its claim the applicant submits that the defen-
dant's determination of the facts is erroneous. It also complains
of a breach of the obligation to give reasons under Article 253
EC and infringement of the principles of legal security and
certainty. Moreover, by the contested decision, the Commission
has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1)
and the principle of sound administration. The contested deci-
sion is also in breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in conjunction with
the Community framework for State aid in the agricultural
sector (2). Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission's
decision infringes the principle of protection of
legitimate
expectations and the prohibition of discrimination.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2, and OJ 2000 C 232, p. 19.

Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Giant (China) v
Council

(Case T-17/06)

(2006/C 74/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mopro-Nord GmbH (Altentreptow, Germany) (repre-
sented by: L. Harings and C.H. Schmidt)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant: Giant (China) Co., Ltd (Kunshan City, China) [repre-
sented by: P. De Baere, lawyer]

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.