CELEX: C1997/318/46
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 July 1997 by Eurocoton and others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-213/97)

18 . 10 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/23
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by Agnes Hubert against               Action brought on 18 July 1997 by Eurocoton and others
        the Commission of the European Communities                             against the Council of the European Union
                       ( Case T-212/97)                                                     ( Case T-213/97)
                         ( 97/C 318/45 )                                                      ( 97/C 318/46 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 1997                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
by Agnes Hubert, resident in Brussels, represented by                Communities on 18 July 1997 by Eurocoton, a Belgian
Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address for              association de fait representing the Community producers
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,               of unbleached cotton fabrics, and 13 Community
21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                     producers of those fabrics, represented by Clive Stanbrook
                                                                     QC and Professor Alan Dashwood, Barristers of the Inner
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Temple, London, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the offices of Arsene Kronshagen, Avocat,
— annul the decision of the Director-General of DG V                 12, Boulevard de la Foire .
     definitively adopting her staff report for the period
     1993 to 1995 , notified to her on 16 April 1997,
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     — declare void the Council's decision to reject the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Commission's proposal for a Regulation 1 . imposing
                                                                          definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
In support of her action for annulment, the applicant                     unbleached cotton fabric from India, Indonesia,
contends primarily that the contested report is vitiated by               Pakistan, Turkey, China and Egypt and 2 . collecting
infringements of formal and procedural requirements,                      the provisional duties imposed by Regulation ( EC )
namely:                                                                   No 2208/96 of 18 November 1996,
— breach of the principles of good administration and of
     legal certainty inasmuch as the report was in fact              — order that the Council make good any damage caused
     drawn up after the date which appears on it,                         to the applicants by its unlawful rejection of the
                                                                          Commission's proposal,
— failure to consult her previous immediate superior in
     due time and in accordance with the procedure laid                   and
     down,
— infringement of the obligation to give reasons for an              — order the Council to pay the costs.
     adverse change in the analytical assessment, laid down
     by the second paragraph of Article 5 of the General
     Provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Regulations of 27 July 1979,
                                                                     The Council had no power ultimately to reject the
— breach of the requirement that the report is to relate             Commission's proposal, and in so doing it infringed
     exclusively to the reference period, laid down by the           Articles 6 ( 9 ) and 9 (4 ) of Council Regulation ( EC)
     first paragraph of Article 5 of the said general                No 384/96 ( OJ L 56, 6 . 3 . 1996, p. 1 ). Since the adoption
     provisions.                                                     of mandatory time limits for the conclusion of anti­
                                                                     dumping investigations the Council must adopt a proposal
She relies in the alternative on illegalities regarding the          from the Commission before the expiry of the 15-month
content of the report:                                               deadline. All that the Council could do was require that
                                                                     the proposal be amended as to its modalities, while
— infringement of the obligation to make the analytical              remaining within the limits of the findings of fact made by
                                                                     the Commission .
     assessment independently from the general assessment
     and on the basis of the applicable assessment
     definitions,
                                                                     In the alternative, if ( which is not admitted ) the Council
                                                                     did have the power to reject the Commission's proposal
— manifest errors of fact,                                           outright, it did so in this case in wilful disregard of the
                                                                     facts found by the Commission or on the basis of a
— misuse of powers.                                                  manifest error in its assessment of those facts . Moreover,
                                                                     its rejection amounted to a denial of the procedural rights
                                                                     and legitimate expectations of the applicants. Last of all,
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
the Council did not state any reasons for its decision and           linguist with responsibility at the time for automatic
did not publish its Decision as required by Article 14 ( 2 )         translation in Brussels' was not sufficient positively to
of Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 .                                      identify the applicant, and, even if it were, it was not
                                                                     defamatory.
The second to 14th applicants will suffer loss arising
directly out of the Council's Decision. The Commission's             In support of his claims, the applicant argues in particular
definitive findings in the anti-dumping investigation were           that there is nothing in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations
that, if duties were not imposed, the negative trend of the          to the effect that, in the case of damage caused to an
Community industry would continue, with the possibility              official by statements, allusions or allegations concerning
of its disappearance .                                               his character, the duty to provide assistance applies only
                                                                     where it is established that those statements, allusions or
                                                                     allegations are false. Specifically, for defamation to have
                                                                     taken place it is not necessary that the inaccuracy of the
                                                                     alleged fact be proven, but merely that its accuracy be not
                                                                     proven .
Action brought on 17 July 1997 by Bernard Lavorel
                                                                     The applicant also complains that the inquiry procedure
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     concerning his request for assistance did not give him the
                        ( Case T-214/97 )                            opportunity to state his case .
                          ( 97/C 318/47)
                                                                     Finally, the applicant claims that a parallel file exists in
                                                                     relation to him, and complains of the Commission's
                (Language of the case: French)                       unwillingness to promote him, which, he maintains, is
                                                                     influenced by documents included in that file, of whose
                                                                     existence he was unaware .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 July 1997                 (■) [ 1995 ECR-SC IA, p. 233 .
by Bernard Lavorel, residing in Brussels, represented by
Yves Rosenoer, of the Brussels Bar with an address for
service at 98 , rue J. B. Colyns.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Lema SA against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 15 May 1997 on                                           Case T-216/97 )
     the applicant's complaint by registered letter of
     16 December 1996,                                                                        ( 97/C 318/48 )
— order the Commission to assist the applicant,                                       (Language of the case: French)
— order the Commission to make good the damage                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     suffered by the applicant.
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                     by Lema SA, whose registered office is at Gennevilliers
                                                                     ( France ), represented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
The applicant challenges the refusal of the Commission to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
provide him with assistance, pursuant to Article 24 of the
Staff Regulations, following a number of allegedly
defamatory statements contained in tracts distributed by             — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
the R and D trade union, according to which Mr Lavorel
had directly contributed to the drawing up of a parallel
file concerning another official .                                   — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post­
                                                                           clearance, of the duties in dispute,
The Commission maintains that the tracts in question did             — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
no more than reproduce recitals in the judgment of the                     remission of those duties,
Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/
93 , Baltsavias v. Commission ('). Moreover, the reference
in the publication in question to a 'French former lawyer­           — order the Commission to pay the costs.