Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

21.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 118/41

— —
that, in any event, a period of three and a half years Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 3(8) of the basic dumping
elapsed between 1 December 1995, the date on which he regulation in determining that the Community industry
was first found to be suffering from invalidity, and his has suffered material injury,
reinstatement in service on 16 June 1999, a fairly long
period of time during which the applicant’s home in — Article 3(6) of the basic dumping regulation in determinBelgium had to be kept up and maintained in order to be ing that imports from the targeted countries caused
ready for use on his return to Belgium. Further, the material injury to the Community industry, and
applicant incurred substantial costs prior to moving to
Belgium. —
Articles 20(4), 20(5) and 6(9) of the basic dumping
regulation, Article 253 EC as well as the applicant’s right
to a fair hearing.

( [1] ) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.

**Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka**
**Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European**
**Union**

**(Case T-35/01)**
**Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against**
**the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market**
(2001/C 118/111)

**(Case T-36/01)**

_(Language of the case: English)_
(2001/C 118/112)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
_(Language of the case: English)_
Communities on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under Chinese
Law, represented by Paul Waer, of the Brussels Bar. An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
established under the laws of Belgium, represented by Susanne
— Möbus of Müller-Boré & Parnter, Munich (Germany).
annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000
of 27 November 2000 in so far as it imposes an antidumping duty on Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd., The applicant claims that the Court should:
and;

—
annul or alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
— order the Council to pay the costs of the application. the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of
30 November 2000 (case R 0137/2000-1);

—
order the Office to pay the costs.
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in the present case is a company incorporated
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
under Chinese Law, whose object is to manufacture high
technology products. It claims that, by imposing anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain retail electronic weighing scales Trade mark concerned: A design applied to a surface
manufactured and exported by the applicant, the defendant of the goods in accordance with
has infringed various provisions of the Council Regulation Article 63(1), of the regulation on
No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from the Community trade mark (Case
countries not members of the European Communities( [1] ) (the R 0137/2000-1).
basic dumping regulation). It is submitted that the Council has
infringed: Product or service: Classes 11, 19 and 21.

— Article 2(7)c of the basic dumping regulation in denying Challenged decision Refusal of registration by the
that the applicant could be granted market economy before the Board of Examiner.
status, Appeal:

C 118/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21.4.2001

Grounds submitted: — Infringement of Article 7(1)b The applicant states that, nearly four years after its complaint,
of Regulation n. 40/94. the Commission has not taken any provisional measure or
adopted a definitive decision, and that the contested system is
— Infringement of Article 7(3) of
therefore still being applied, even though it was accepted by
Regulation n. 40/94.
the Commission from the start of the procedure that it was
— Infringement of the appli- not consistent with Community law.
cant’s right of defence.

**Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des**
**employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against**
**Commission of the European Communities**
**Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques**
**Rateau against the Commission of the European Com-**
**(Case T-42/01)** **munities**

(2001/C 118/113) **(Case T-43/01)**

_(Language of the case: French)_ (2001/C 118/114)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
_(Language of the case: French)_
European Communities on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B., established in
Brussels, represented by Luc Misson, Laurent Denis and
Patrick Mbaya Kapita, Avocats, with an address for service in An action against the Commission of the European CommuniLuxembourg. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
Rateau, residing in Beersel (Belgium), represented by Eric
The applicant claims that the Court should: Boigelot, avocat, address for service in Luxembourg.

—
Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
measures within a reasonable time following the appli- The applicant claims that the Court should:
cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
No 17;

—
annul the decision of the appointing authority to assign
— Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the the applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, to the post
necessary measures within one month against the parties of adviser on consumer information working to the Head
complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant of Unit Health and Consumer Protection SANCO.D.4
to Regulation No 17; ‘Food law and biotechnology’, as it emerges from the
organisational chart for DG SANCO of 15 June 2000 and
— the explicit decision adopted on 1 August 2000 by
Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Mr Robert Coleman, Director General of the DirectorateGeneral ‘Consumer policy and consumer health protection’, brought to the applicant’s notice on 28 August
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ 2000;

—
The applicant states that on 1 July 1997 it lodged a complaint order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as compenon the basis of Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now sation for non-material damage, BEF 1 as provisional
Articles 39 EC and 81 EC) concerning the transfer system for damages in respect of injury assessed at BEF 10 000,
professional football players applied by organisations such as subject to increase or decrease in the course of proceedFIFA, URBSFA and the Ligue professionelle de Football de ings;
Belgique. Following that complaint, registered under
No IV/36.583-SETCA-FGTB/FIFA, URBSFA, the Commission

—
initiated a procedure against FIFA. in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.