Case T-332/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Germany v Commission
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, Germany, Structural Funds, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, regional development, structural adjustment

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/53

Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Kuiburi Fruit
Canning v Council

(Case T-330/07)

(2007/C 269/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)
(represented by: F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 of
18 June 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in
kernels originating in Thailand;

— order that the Council of the European Communities pays

the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 682/2007 (1) of 18 June 2007 in that it allegedly infringes
Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/1996 (2)
and
Article 6(10)(2) of the WTO Agreement (3), by rejecting the
applicant's request for an individual margin of dumping despite
the fact that the applicant claims to be the only exporting
producer having submitted the necessary information for the
calculation of the individual margin.

First, according to the applicant, the Council committed a mani-
fest error of assessment in concluding that there was more than
one request for the calculation of an individual margin.

Second,
the applicant claims that, as there was only one
exporting producer that requested the calculation of an indivi-
dual margin, the Council did not have the discretion to deter-
mine whether an individual examination for
the applicant
would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of
the investigation in good time.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Council has committed a
manifest error of assessment by concluding that the calculation
of an individual margin for the applicant would have been
discriminatory towards other non-sampled exporters.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 of 18 June 2007 imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provi-
sional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved
sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ L 159, p. 14).

(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 L 56, p. 1).

(3) Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986-1994) —
Annex 1 — Annex 1A — Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(WTO-GATT 1994) — Anti-dumping agreement (OJ L 336, p. 103).

Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Germany v
Commission

(Case T-332/07)

(2007/C 269/96)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M.
Lumma, Agent, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 2619 final of 25 July
2007 reducing the European Regional Development Fund
assistance granted by Decision C/1994/3379 for
the
single programming document
for Community structural
assistance in the Objective 2 regions of the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia in the Federal Republic of Germany (EFRE
No 94.02.13.012);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Third, should the Council have such discretion, the applicant
the Council committed a manifest error of
contends that
appraisal in finding that additional examination of one exporter
would have been unduly burdensome, preventing the comple-
tion of the investigation in time.

By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the assis-
tance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for
the programming for Community structural assistance in the
Objective 2 regions of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia.

Pleas in law and main arguments

C 269/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the defendant
wrongly assessed the facts in the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In addition, it has submitted that the conditions for a reduction
pursuant to Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1) were
not satisfied. In that regard, the applicant submits that the real-
location made would cause no significant change to the
programme. In addition, it takes the view that the mere refer-
ence to the ‘guidelines for the financial closure of operational
assistance
Funds’
(SEC(1999) 1316) is not sufficient to show the significance of
the change.

(1994-1999)

from the

Structural

Even if there were a significant change to the programme, the
applicant submits that the Commission should have used its
discretion under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 with
implementation of the programme. The
regard to the actual
applicant submits that
the defendant should have assessed
whether a reduction in the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying
down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds
between themselves and with the operations of the European Invest-
ment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374,
31.12.1988, p. 1).

Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Entrance Services
v Parliament

(Case T-333/07)

(2007/C 269/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Entrance Services NV (Vilvoorde, Belgium)
sented by: A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Declare the action for annulment admissible;

— Annul the decision by which the Parliament rejected the
applicant's tender and granted the contract
to another
tenderer, a decision notified to the applicant on 14 August
2007;

— Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

By this action the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision
of
the Parliament of 14 August 2007 rejecting its tender
submitted in the framework of the tender procedure for the
repair and maintenance of
for
conclusion of a contract
automatic
in
and similar
joinery
European Parliament buildings in Brussels [(contract for the
provision
tender
No IFIN-BATIBRU-JLD-S0765-00)] (1).

2007-2010)

equipment,

equipment

services

(call

for

of

In support of its action the applicant claims, first, an infringe-
ment of Article 10 of the schedule of administrative clauses and
of Article 93(1) of
the
Parliament accepted a tender submitted by a tenderer which,
according to the applicant, was excluded under Article 10 of the
schedule of administrative clauses as a result of a finding by the
Commission that it had participated in a cartel.

the Financial Regulation (2),

in that

Second, the applicant maintains that the Parliament infringed
Articles 97 and 98 of the Financial Regulation and Article 137
of the Implementing Regulation (3) by requiring tenderers to
establish their technical capacity to carry out the contract by
means of evidence other than that referred to by those provi-
sions.

the Implementing Regulation,

Third, the applicant relies on a plea alleging the infringement of
Articles 97 and 98 of
the Financial Regulation and of
the
Article 135(5) of
Parliament required tenderers to demonstrate their economic
and financial capacity to carry out the contract by means of
evidence not provided for in those provisions, and in that it
rejected the applicant's tender on the ground that it had failed
to provide the evidence required.

in that

the Financial Regulation,

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision should
be annulled because it infringes the equality principle laid down
the
in Article 89(1) of
Parliament rejected its tender and awarded the contract
to
another tenderer even though it was in the same situation as
the applicant with regard to the non-production of the certifica-
tions required by Article 11 of the schedule of administrative
clauses.

in that

(1) Contract notice published in OJ 2006/S 148-159062.
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation

of
23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementa-
tion of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the
Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities, as amended (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

Euratom) No

2342/2002

(EC,