Case T-45/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, World Trade Organisation, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, plastics, third country

C 86/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

Defendant: Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias —
Hellenic Ventures S.A., Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis
Chronopoulos, Minas Patsouris, Nikolaos Poulakos and Robert
Ceurvorst

carried out an on-the-spot
inspection and had expressed
serious doubts as to whether the investments which the first
defendant company was supposed to have funded corre-
sponded to the tender specifications.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant company, jointly with the second to
the sixth defendants, to repay to the Commission the entire
amount of the advance received by the first defendant from
the Community, that is, ECU (now EURO) 70 000, together
with interest, calculated as laid down in the contract,
amounting, until 12 February 2006, to a sum of ECU (now
EURO) 103 423,54, that is, a total of ECU (now EURO)
171 939,18, as well as interest, again in accordance with
the terms of the contract, of 1.5 % per month, that is, an
amount of ECU (now EURO) 34.52 per day for the period
from 1 January 2006 until full discharge of the sum due by
the defendants;

— order the defendants jointly to pay the Commission's costs,

including the fees of the Commission's lawyers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community,
represented by the European
Commission, concluded with the first defendant company, in
which the other defendants are shareholders and members of
its Board or directors, a contract entitled ‘Seed Fund 601’, in
the context of the Pilot action to create and develop seed-
capital funds. (1)

Under that contract the Commission undertook to provide to
the first defendant financial support in the form of a repayable
advance of a maximum amount of ECU 350 000. That advance
was intended to cover a maximum limit of 50 % of the oper-
ating costs which the first defendant would incur in the context
of its activities as the Fund for start-up business capital
in
Greece. In that context, the Commission paid to the first defen-
dant the first annual advance of ECU 70 000.

By letter of 16 June 1994, the Commission informed the defen-
dant that it was rescinding the contract and asked it to repay,
with interest, the amount of ECU 70 000. By letter of 19
September 1994 the Commission explained that that decision
was taken as a result of the defendant's refusal to submit to a
detailed inspection by the auditors of the Commission's finan-
cial control service, in breach of Article 8(1) of the contract.
The Commission had decided that such an audit was indispen-
sable in view of the findings of a Commission official who had

Although the first defendant was repeatedly called upon to
repay the amount demanded, it failed to do so.

By its action the Commission seeks payment of the above
amount owed to it together with the interest due.

(1) OJ C 306 of 1.12.1988, p. 12.

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Reliance Indus-
tries v Council and Commission

(Case T-45/06)

(2006/C 86/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reliance Industries Ltd (Bombay, India) [represented
by: I. MacVay, S. Ahmed, Solicitors]

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the Commission's decisions, dated 1 December
2005, giving notice of an expiry review of the counter-
vailing measures applicable to imports of certain bottle
grade polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’) originating in, inter
alia, India, and of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-
dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET
originating in India,
the Republic of Korea,
Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand and a partial interim review
of
the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of
certain PET originating in the Republic of Korea and
Taiwan (1);

Indonesia,

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/39

— if the Court considers it to be necessary or appropriate,
annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2603/2000, Council
Regulation (EC) No. 2604/2000 and Commission Decision
No. 2000/745/EC, in so far as they may purport to extend
to the applicant in the period after 1 December 2005; and

— if, but only if, and only to the extent that the Court may
find, contrary to the applicant's case, that they differ in
their true construction from the terms of Article 11.3 of
the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) Dumping Agree-
ment and/or Article 21.3 of the WTO Anti-Subsidies Agree-
ment, annul Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No.
384/96 (‘the basic anti-dumping regulation’) and Article
18(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2026/97 (‘the basic
anti-subsidy regulation’);

— order that the defendants meet the applicant's costs of these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

and Thailand and terminating the

By the two contested decisions the Commission decided to
initiate an expiry review with regard to Council Regulation No.
2603/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive coun-
tervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty
imposed on imports of certain PET originating in India,
Malaysia
anti-subsidy
proceeding concerning imports of certain PET originating in
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2) and Council
Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 of 27 November 2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defini-
tively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain PET
originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea,
Taiwan and Thailand (3), as well as Commission Decision No.
2000/745/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection
with the above anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings (4).
By virtue of Articles 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation
and 18(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, the effect of
these notices of initiation, if given in time, would be that the
relevant measures remain in force pending the outcome of the
review.

expiry review was not initiated before the date of expiry, as
required by WTO rules. In this respect, the applicant considers
that the basic regulations must be interpreted in accordance
with WTO agreements and that, in any case, any ambiguity in
the basic regulations must be resolved in its favour, in accord-
ance with general principles of Community law. The applicant
further contends that if the basic regulations could not be inter-
preted in the manner it suggests, then those provisions would
themselves be contrary to WTO rules and therefore invalid to
this extent.

(1) OJ C 304, 1.12.2005 p. 4 and p. 9
(2) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 1
(3) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 21
(4) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 88

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Galileo Lebens-
mittel v Commission

(Case T-46/06)

(2006/C 86/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG (Trierweiler,
Germany) (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

In support of its application the applicant submits that there
has been no valid initiation of an expiry review so that the
measures and undertaking at issue expired, in accordance with
their terms, on 1 December 2005. The applicant argues that
the notices were published on the same day as that on which
the measures expired (1 December) and that, therefore, an

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision to reserve the domain gali-
leo.eu and order the defendant to allow the registry issuing
eu. Top Level Domains (EURid)
freely the
domain Galileo.eu.

to register