Case T-193/08 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06, Skareby v Commission
Date: 2008-05-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, professional career, staff assessment

C 197/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

In the alternative, the applicants put forward one ground of
annulment of the contested decision, namely that the Commis-
sion committed an error of law, a manifest error of assessment
and violated the principle of equal treatment and sound admin-
istration by rejecting the applicants' request for the suspension
of the measures.

(1) OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6.
(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).

Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Transnational
Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council

(Case T-192/08)

(2008/C 197/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants:
Kazchrome)
(Kloten, Switzerland)
Willems, lawyers)

Transnational
(TNK
(Aktobe, Kazakhstan) and ENRC Marketing AG
(represented by: L. Ruessmann and A.

‘Kazchrome’

Company

manifest errors of fact and breaches of the Basic Regulation (2)
(‘the Basic Regulation’) as well as of the WTO Anti-Dumping
Agreement. The applicants further argue that
the defendant
failed to state reasons as required by Article 253 EC.

On the basis of the first plea, the applicants submit that the
Council failed to properly distinguish between effects caused by
other known factors from any injury caused by the targeted
imports and, thus, the Council's findings violate Articles 3(2),
3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation.

On the basis of their second plea, the applicants advance that
the anti-dumping duty was adopted on the basis of an erro-
neous assessment of Community interest and in violation of
Articles 9(4) and 21 of the Basic Regulation.

On the basis of their third plea, it is submitted that although the
applicants provided verifiable information to the institutions,
they were allegedly treated as non-cooperating,
the Council
failed to check the facts used against available information
which was brought to their attention and failed to carry out a
proper market economy treatment within the time-limits
imposed by the Basic Regulation.

On the basis of the fourth plea, the applicants contend that
their rights of defence have been violated in the course of the
investigation.

(1) OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6.
(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).

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— To declare the application admissible;

— to annul Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 imposing a
ferro-silicon
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt,
Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
Russia as far as it applies to the applicants;

— order the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred

by the applicants.

Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Carina Skareby against
the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06, Skareby v Commission

(Case T-193/08 P)

(2008/C 197/47)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The applicants, who produce and sell ferro-silicon to the market
of the European Union, seek partial annulment of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 172/2008 (1) of 25 February 2008 imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating
in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that they
are directly and individually concerned by the contested regu-
lation and that the anti-dumping duty imposed by the said regu-
lation is the result of several manifest errors of assessment,

Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S.
Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment delivered on 6 March 2008 by the
European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-46/06;

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/27

— uphold the claims seeking annulment and damages put
forward by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the case, those
incurred both by the applicant company and by Mr Cattin.

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the
judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 6 March
2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, which dismissed
her action for, first, annulment of her career development report
for 2004 and, second, damages.

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas,
(paragraphs 66, 98
alleging manifest errors of assessment
and 113 of the contested judgment) and distortion of the clear
sense of evidence (paragraph 68).

Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Cattin and Cattin v
Commission

(Case T-194/08)

(2008/C 197/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: R. Cattin & Cie (Bimbo, Central African Republic)
and Yves Cattin (Cadiz, Spain) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company, specialising in production, processing
and exportation of coffee in the Central African Republic, has
been refused reimbursement via funds of the European Develop-
ment Fund (EDF) of debts which it held from the State body
‘Soutien Café’, a body created to support the price of coffee at
the time of large reductions in prices at the end of the 1980's.
The applicant company was refused reimbursement on the
ground that, according to an audit report established at the
request of the national authorities, it had probably embezzled
certain sums for the benefit of its associates. Following that
refusal, the applicant company has had to suspend all its activ-
ities and dismiss the 800 permanent employees working in its
plantations.

In support of their action, the applicants allege, firstly, a breach
of (i) their rights of the defence, since the applicant company
did not present evidence at the time the audit report which
found that there had been embezzlement was established and
(ii) of the presumption of innocence, since no evidence was put
forward to support that finding.

Next, the applicants raise a plea alleging breach of the principles
of effective judicial protection, legal certainty and the duty to
give reasons, since the applicant company was refused reimbur-
sement without the Commission having sent it any decision and
without the company having been informed formally of the
recommendations of the audit report on which that refusal was
based.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the
principles of due care and sound administration, since applica-
tions sent
to the Commission by the national authorities
concerning the applicant company's case went unanswered and
the audit report was based on incorrect figures, which meant
that a second expert opinion was required, which the Commis-
sion accepted without, however, obtaining such an opinion.

Form of order sought

Action brought on 26 May 2008 — Market Watch v OHIM
— Ares Trading (SEROSLIM)

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company a total of

EUR 18 946 139 for material loss suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company the sum

of EUR 100 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Order

the defendant

to pay Mr Cattin the sum of

EUR 150 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Add default interest to those amounts to run from the date
of delivery of the judgment in the present case until effective
payment, at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the
European Central Bank for main refinancing operations plus
2 points, such rate not to exceed 6 %;

(Case T-201/08)

(2008/C 197/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport,
Bahamas) (represented by: J. E. Korab, lawyer)