Case T-467/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), dangerous substance, indemnification, pharmaceutical product, plant health legislation, plant health product, withdrawal from the market

C 51/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

nuation of the anti-dumping duties for one year instead of the
five-year period foreseen in the Basic Regulation (2).

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PharmaRe-
in Class 9 (Application
search’
No 5 309 836)

and services

for goods

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), since there were no grounds for refusal of
registration.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 25 December 2007 — Osram v Council

(Case T-466/07)

(2008/C 51/95)

Language of the case: English

In support of its application, the applicant submits, first of all,
that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by
holding that two entities of the Philips group are ‘Community
producers’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Basic
Regulation.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Council committed a
manifest error of law by applying a Community interest test
even though such a test is not foreseen for an expiry review.

the applicant contends that

Thirdly,
the Council breached
Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and abused its powers by
limiting the duration of the anti-dumping duties to one year.

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council based the Com-
munity interest test on manifestly erroneous factual findings,
made an erroneous assessment and failed to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.
(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).

Parties

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Du Pont de
Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

Applicant: Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany)
R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 and order
that the contested regulation's effects be upheld until a fresh
review regulation comes into force.

Parties

(Case T-467/07)

(2008/C 51/96)

Language of the case: English

— Order

the defendant

to bear

the costs of

the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

light bulbs,

The applicant, who is a German producer of a broad range of
various types of
including integrated electronic
fluorescent lamps (CFL-i), seeks the annulment of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-
dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact
fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of
China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports
of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of
the Philippines (1), as this regulation only provides for the conti-

Applicants: Du Pont de Nemours (France) SAS (Puteaux, France),
Du Pont Portugal — Serviços,
sociedade unipessoal, Ld.a
(Lisbon, Portugal), Du Pont Ibérica SL (Barcelona, Spain), E.I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co (Wilmington, United States), Du Pont de
Nemours Italiana SRL (Milan,
Italy), Du Pont De Nemours
(Nederland) BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands), Du Pont de Nemours
(Deutschland) GmbH (Bad Homburg v.d. Höhe, Germany),
DuPont Poland sp.
(Warsaw, Poland), DuPont
International
Romania SRL (Bucharest, Rumania), DuPont
Operations SARL (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland), Du Pont de
Nemours International SA (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland),
DuPont Solutions (France) SAS (Puteaux, France), Du Pont Agro
Hellas AE (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and
I. Antypas, lawyers)

z o. o.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/53

Form of order sought

as the applicants' right
reasons.

to be heard and the duty to state

— Order

the annulment of

the Commission decision of
19 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of meth-
omyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products
containing that substance;

— condemn the Community as

represented here by the
Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants
as a result of the contested decision and to set the amount
of this compensation for the damage suffered by the appli-
cants currently estimated at approximately EUR 52,5 million;
or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be
suffered by the applicants as further established by them in
the course of this procedure especially to take due account
of future damage;

— in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the Court
within a reasonable period of time of the date of the judg-
ment figures as to the amount of the compensation arrived
at by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of
agreement, to order the parties to produce to the Court
within the same period their conclusions with detailed
figures;

— order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European
Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two
percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be deter-
mined by the Court, be paid on the amount payable as from
the date of the Court's judgment until actual payment;

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1).

(2) OJ 2007 L 255, p. 40.

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Philips Lighting
Poland and Philips Lighting v Council

(Case T-469/07)

(2008/C 51/97)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A. (Pila, Poland) and Philips
Lighting BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)
(represented by: M. L.
Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1) provides that Member
States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its
active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of
Commission Decision 2007/628/EC of 19 September 2007
to
concerning the non-inclusion of methomyl
Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisa-
tions for plant protection products containing that substance (2).
The applicants further request compensation for the alleged
damages caused by the contested decision.

in Annex I

In support of their application for annulment, the applicants
submit that the contested decision is adopted on the basis of an
incomplete and manifestly incorrect risk assessment of meth-
omyl, whereby the Commission did not take into account infor-
mation that was available to it since September 2005.

The applicants allege that the Commission misused its powers
and infringed the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC and the
principles of proportionality,
legal
certainty, legitimate expectations and non-discrimination as well

sound administration,

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested regulation in its entirety or in so far as

it affects the applicants;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are producers of
integrated fluorescent
lamps (CFL-i) in the Community, seek the annulment of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing
anti-dumping duties on imports of
integrated electronic
compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's
Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant
to
Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and
extending to imports of the same product consigned from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
and the Republic of the Philippines (1).

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Council violated Articles 3(1), 9(4) and 11(2) of the Basic Regu-
lation (2) by imposing anti-dumping duties where it has not
been demonstrated that the expiry of the measures would be
likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the
Community industry.