Case T-301/06: Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, European Commission, India, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import, originating product

C 326/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v
Commission

127(2) EC and 157(1) EC, in that the Commission did not, in
this case, correctly evaluate the existence of a Community
interest in adopting anti-dumping measures.

(Case T-301/06)

(2006/C 326/129)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lemaître Sécurité SAS (La Walck, France) (represented
by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare admissible the action for annulment brought by
Lemaître Sécurité SAS against the Commission Decision of
28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding;

— Annul the decision of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-

dumping proceeding;

— Order the re-examination of the termination of the anti-

dumping proceeding for safety footwear;

— Monitor compliance with the judgement of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities under Article
233 EC;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the

in consequence of

By Decision 2006/582/EC of 28 August 2006 (1), the Commis-
sion decided to terminate
anti-dumping proceeding
concerning imports of footwear with a protective toecap origin-
ating in the People's Republic of China and India, after the main
complainant withdrew its complaint
the
Commission's letter of 5 July 2006 accepting, after an investiga-
tion it had conducted, that there had been dumping of safety
footwear but refusing to impose anti-dumping duties on the
ground that
in
imposing such duties. The applicant, a European producer of
safety footwear claims that, because of the import of footwear
from China and India, it is suffering economic and strategic loss
in the absence of measures adopted to re-establish fair competi-
tion.

the European Community had no interest

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in
law.

The first plea in law alleges a defective statement of reasons in
that, in the applicant's submission, the Commission did not set
out, clearly and unequivocally, the reasons why it refuses to
adopt anti-dumping measures.

The second plea in law alleges breach of Article 9(1) of Regu-
lation No 384/96 (2), combined with Articles 2 EC, 3(m) EC,

By its third plea in law, the applicant claims that, by expressly
accepting that there had been dumping of safety footwear whilst
refusing to adopt measures to correct
the Commission
infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions.

it,

(1) OJ 2006 L 234, p. 33.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1), as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17).

Action brought on 6 November 2006 — UniCredito
Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds
(Uniweb)

(Case T-303/06)

(2006/C 326/130)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredito Italiano S.p.A. (Genoa, Italy) (represented
by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 5 September 2006, adopted in joined proceedings R
196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2,
relating to opposition
proceedings No B490971 concerning Community trade
mark application No 2.236.164.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘UNIWEB’ (appli-
cation for registration No 2.236.164), for services in Classes 35,
36 and 42.