Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

7.8.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/29

2. The cases referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall be **Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay**
allocated between the Chambers as follows: **against the European Investment Bank**

(a) The cases referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be assigned
**(Case T-96/99)**
in turn, according to the order in which they are
registered at the Court Registry, to the First Second,
Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended Compo- (1999/C 226/53)
sition;

(b) Cases concerning intellectual property, as referred to
_(Language of the case: French)_
in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
of First Instance, shall be assigned according to the
order in which they are registered at the Court Registry, An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
to the Second and Fourth Chambers; before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay, resident in Luxem(c) The cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be assigned bourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers. an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Such assignment is to be effected on the basis of three Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
separate rotas, reflecting the order in which the cases
are registered at the Court Registry:
The applicant claims that the Court should:

— for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC
— annul the decision adopted by the European Investment
Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty,
Bank (‘the EIB’), by memorandum dated 18 February 1999
— for the cases concerning the implementation of the drawn up by its President, Sir Brian Unwin, notifying the
rules of competition applicable to undertakings, applicant of the continuation for an indefinite period of
the decision previously adopted on 27 July 1998 not to
— for the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b). treat the civil statue of ‘partnerschap’ as equivalent to
marriage, together with the consequences which may arise
therefrom in relation to the pension scheme and the family
For the purposes of the rota referred to in the first indent of
allowance;
paragraph 2(c), the assignment of cases concerning intellectual
property to the Second and Fourth Chamber on the basis of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall be compensated for
by the assignment of cases to the First, Third and Fifth
Chambers on a pro rata basis.
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
For the purposes of the rotas referred to in paragraphs 2(a)
and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended The applicant, a former member of the staff of the European
Composition, presided over by the President of the Court of Investment Bank (‘EIB’), contests the refusal by the appointing
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every third authority to take account of the act, registered in the Nethertime the end of a rota is reached. lands in accordance with Netherlands law, recognising his
cohabitation (‘partnerschap’) as a partner for life with another
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from person, as regards its possible effects on the pension scheme
that order on the ground that cases are related or with a view and family allowance provided for by the Staff Regulations of
to ensuring an even spread of the workload. the EIB.

The applicant maintains that the contested decision is not in
_**Plenary session**_
conformity with the Conciliation Board’s recommendation of
5 November 1998, which stated that the EIB’s Staff Regulations
At its plenary meeting on 6 July 1999, the Court of First and pension rules should be revised in order to take into
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of account, in particular, the changes occurring in the social
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First environment within the Union, which have been recognised
Instance that where, following the designation of an Advocate by the enactment of legislation in certain Member States, and
general pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there the staff regulations of other comparable institutions. The
is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance Conciliation Board also considered that any change resulting
sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance in from such revision should be applicable to the present case.
accordance with which the President of the Court is to
designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
the case shall be in reverse order to that in which the Judges
Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, of Articles 52 and 53 of
rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of
the Staff Pension Scheme Rules, of Article 119 of the Treaty
the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be
on European Union and of the Conciliation Board’s decision
designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be
the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be of 5 November 1998, as well as breach of certain general
principles of law, such as the principle of the protection of
designated.
legitimate expectations, the principle of equality of treatment
as between the various members of the staff of an institution
and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex.

C 226/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.8.1999

In addition, the applicant considers that the contested decision The applicants submit that the contested regulation:
is based on reasoning which is irrelevant and erroneous.

— infringes essential procedural requirements laid down in
Articles 1(1), 1(2) and 5(4) of the Basic Regulation, Article
VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1 and 4.1 of the
WTOAD, and in so doing makes a manifest error of
assessment of the facts and the law by imposing an
anti-dumping duty when it had not correctly and properly
determined the product under investigation, and as a result
had failed to ensure that the investigation leading to
**Action brought on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja,** the contested regulation was supported by a sufficiently
**Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie,** representative proportion of the Community industry
**Alpex-Karlino** **S.A.** **at** **Karlino** **and** **Zaklady** **Plyt** producing the like product. More specifically, the appli**Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie against the Council of the** cants state in this respect that hardboard in itself is a too
**European Union** narrow a definition of ’like products’, within the meaning
of Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation. As a result, the
Community industry producing the like product was
**(Case T-104/99)** incorrectly defined, so that the complainants were not
sufficiently representative of Community production of
the like product as to constitute a majority of the
(1999/C 226/54)
industry. The complainants therefore failed to satisfy the
requirements of Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation.

_(Language of the case: English)_
— infringes an essential procedural requirement under
Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, Article VI of
An action against the Council of the European Union was
the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and 3(1) of the WTOAD,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
and makes a manifest error of assessment in finding that
Communities on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja, Zaklady Plyt
the Community industry producing the like product under
Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie, Alpex-Karlino S.A. at
investigation suffered injury. According to the applicants,
Karlino and Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie,
the investigation of injury conducted by the Commission
represented by Mr. Vassilios N. Akritidis and Mr Tom Pick,
concerned only a very small number of complaints, and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
considered hardboard performance only, thus eliminating
Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
from consideration the excellent performances of the thin
MDF sector. The Council was not therefore in possession
of adequate and reliable indicators from which to draw
The applicants claim that the Court should:
any reliable conclusion on injury.

— declare, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
that the definitive regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No — infringes an essential procedural requirement under
194/99) is null and void; Articles 1(1), 3(o´), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation,
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 3.5, 3.6 and
3.7 of the WTOAD, and makes a manifest error of
— order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings
assessment in finding that imports of hardboard were the
be borne by the defendant.
cause of injury to the Community industry producing the
like product.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Finally, the applicants submit that the contested regulation
The applicants in the presents case, private limited companies is vitiated by infringement of a fundamental procedural
incorporated under the laws of Latvia and Poland respectively, requirement under Articles 29 and 33(3)(b) of the EU/Latvia
challenge Council Regulation (EC) No 194/99 of 25 January Europe Agreement, in that it was adopted without due
1999, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of consultation being offered to the Government of Latvia.
hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional
duties imposed( [1] ).

( [1] ) OJ L 22, 29.11.1999, p. 16.

Hardboard, the product at issue, is a wood-based panel
product. It forms part of a wider family of several wood-based
panel products which all bear similarities between one another.
Such products are, for example, Medium Density Fibreboard
(MDF), High Density Fibreboard (HDF), chipboard, plywood,
softwood, etc.