CELEX: C1998/113/47
Language: en
Date: 1998-04-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 February 1998 by André Hecq against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-35/98)

11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 113/19
Ð have exceeded the limits of their discretion in the                Action brought on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA
    determination of the normal value by using, pursuant                      against the Council of the European Union
    to Article 3(4), third subparagraph, of the Basic                                        (Case T-34/98)
    Regulation, the 20 % rule to determine whether sales
    below costs are made in substantial quantities,                                           (98/C 113/46)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
Ð have infringed Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation
    and committed a manifest error of appraisal with                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
    respect to the calculation of the dumping margin,                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    inasmuch as                                                      Communities on 23 February 1998 by Republica SA,
                                                                     represented by Alfred L. Merckx, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Duro & Lorang,
    Ð no explanation has been given as to why a                      4, boulevard Royal.
         comparison of the weighted average normal value
         with the prices of all individual export transactions
         reflects the full degree of dumping better than the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
         normal methods,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
    Ð the dumping determination is based on factors
         falling outside the investigation period,
                                                                     Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/
                                                                         97 in so far as it concerns the applicant, and
    Ð the existence of a pattern of export prices differing
         according to the various purchasers, regions or             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
         time-periods has not been demonstrated,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð have committed manifest errors of appraisal in the
    determination of injury and failed to demonstrate                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
    in accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the                   those relied on in Case T-33/98 Petrotub v. Council.
    Basic Regulation that material injury suffered by
    Community industry is caused by the imports from the
    countries subject to the investigation,
Ð have failed, in breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic               Action brought on 25 February 1998 by AndreÂ Hecq
    Regulation and the fundamental right to be heard, to               against the Commission of the European Communities
    give final disclosure on the considerations relating to                                  (Case T-35/98)
    the Community interest.
                                                                                              (98/C 113/47)
The applicant finally submits that the conditions imposed                           (Language of the case: French)
by the Community institutions for imports to be exempted
from the anti-dumping duties in accordance with Article 2            An action against the Commission of the European
of the contested Regulation constitute an infringement of            Communities was brought before the Court of First
Articles 8(1) of the Basic Regulation and of the 1994                Instance of the European Communities on 25 February
GATT Anti-dumping Agreement, Article 34(2) and (3) of                1998 by AndreÂ Hecq, residing in Bonlez (Belgium), both
the Association Agreement with Romania, the conclusions              in his own name and that of the UIECS, represented by
of the Essen European Council laying down the                        Lucas Vogel of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
foundations for the pre-accession strategy for the                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and              Kremer, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. In relation to the last
point, it is contended that by requiring the applicant to set
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
its prices in line with the European producers, the
Community institutions have forced the applicant into a
parallel pricing behaviour in contravention of the                   Ð annul the decision of 17 November 1997, notified to
European competition rules.                                              the applicant on 24 November 1997, rejecting the
                                                                         applicant's complaint against the decision of 20 March
                                                                         1997, adopted in response to the applicant's request
(1) OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.                                          pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         refusing to take the measures necessary to ensure
                                                                         collective and proportional representation in the
                                                                         membership of the Bureau of the local Staff
 ---pagebreak--- C 113/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
    Committee in Brussels, inter alia, by calling a new             Action brought on 2 March 1998 by the Foreign Trade
    constituent meeting of that committee,                          Association (FTA), HypermarcheÂ Auchan SA, Karstadt
                                                                    Aktiengesellschaft, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, La Blanche
                                                                    Porte, Otto Versand GmbH & Co., Quelle Schickedanz
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                             AG & Co. and Textilimportörerna against the Council of
                                                                                         the European Union
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                         (Case T-37/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 113/48)
The applicant, both in his own name and that of the
UIECS, challenges the refusal of the Administration to                              (Language of the case: English)
intervene in the membership of the Bureau of the local
section of the Staff Committee in Brussels. He explains             An action against the Council of the European Union was
that, following the election, in February 1997, of the              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
members of the local Staff Committee in Brussels, that              Communities on 2 March 1998 by the Foreign Trade
committee held a constituent meeting to appoint the                 Association (FTA), HypermarcheÂ Auchan SA, Karstadt
members of its Bureau. Rather than distributing the seats           Aktiengesellschaft, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, La Blanche
on the Bureau fairly in proportion with the electoral               Porte, Otto Versand GmbH & Co., Quelle Schickedanz
results, three trade union and staff associations took all          AG & Co. and Textilimportörerna, all represented by
the seats on the pretext of the slim majority which those           Ursula Schliessner, with an address for service in
three organisations had in the local committee in Brussels.         Luxembourg at the Offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
All other trade union and staff associations were left out          10, rue Mathias Hardt.
of the Bureau. The present proceedings are brought
following rejection of the request for intervention by the
appointing authority to put the situation right.                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð declare Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 to be
In support of his claims, the applicant argues that the                  illegal and void,
contested decison breaches
                                                                    Ð take such other steps as justice may require, and
Ð Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and the decision
    of the Commission concerning the exercise of the                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    powers conferred on the appointing authority by the                  applicants in the present proceedings.
    Staff Regulations, published in Administrative notices'
    No 498 of 7 April 1986, in that the contested decision
    was signed by the member of the Commission                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    responsible for personnel and administration, whereas
    only the Commission as a whole or the Director-                 By the contested Regulation a definitive anti-dumping
    General of Personnel and Administration had the                 duty has been imposed on imports of bed-linen of cotton
    authority to sign it,                                           fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax
                                                                    bleached, dyed or printed originating in India, Pakistan
                                                                    and Egypt.
Ð Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Rules laying down
    the composition and operation of the Staff Committee'
    adopted by the Commission on 25 April 1988, and                 The applicants other than the Foreign Trade Association
    Articles 7 and 32 of the Internal Rules of the local            (FTA) are the largest European importers and retailers of
    Staff Committee in Brussels, in that the Commission             bed-linen products. Each is a member of the applicant
    decided that it need not intervene to ensure collective        Foreign Trade Association (FTA), which is an association
    responsibility' and proportional' representation in the        of European importer and retail interests principally in the
    membership of the Bureau of the local Staff                     textile and consumer products sector. Also included
    Committee in Brussels, following the elections at issue.        among the FTA's members are national importer
                                                                    associations.
The applicant argues further that it is unacceptable, under         The applicants plead an infringement of Article 1(4) of the
the provisions mentioned, for certain elected members of            Basic Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 384/94, arguing
the local Staff Committee to take up all the seats on the           that the Commission abused its discretion regarding the
Bureau on the basis of a slim majority of votes. Moreover,          like product' detemination when, in rejecting the
such an attitude runs counter to the general principle in           applicants' submissions in that regard, it did not justify
Article 9(3) of the Staff Regulations, the underlying aim of        this by reference, at the very least, to the standard of the
which is to allow the joint expression of all political             objective evidence or explanation submitted by the
positions found among the staff in such a way that a                applicants.
majority does not oppress a minority and thus deprive it
of genuine and effective representation.
                                                                    Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Council has
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment of the
                                                                    Community interest within the meaning of Article 21 of