CELEX: C1998/055/62
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 December 1997 by Onno Plug against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-608/97)

20.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 55/31
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Swedish Match                 of Article 7(4)(a) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation
Advertising Products NV/SA against the Council of the               since respect for the right to a fair hearing is required of
                       European Union                               the Community authorities and not only of the parties.
                       (Case T-599/97)                              That refusal also constitutes an infringement of the
                                                                    requirement of transparency, which is laid down by
                         (98/C 55/61)                               implication in Articles 7(4)(a) and 8(2)(b). The
                                                                    Commission also infringed the applicant's right to a fair
                (Language of the case: English)                     hearing, as laid down in Article 7(4)(b) of the basic anti-
                                                                    dumping Regulation, by its omission of vital information
An action against the Council of the European Union was             relevant to the final amount of the anti-dumping duty
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          imposed on a Japanese competitor.
Communities on 19 December 1997 by Swedish Match
Advertising Products NV/SA, represented by Francisco                The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 2 of the
Miguel Rodero López and Dorio Mutti, with an address                basic anti-dumping Regulation since the dumping
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy                   determination made by the Community institutions is
Dupong, 14a, rue des Bains.                                         vitiated by manifest error in the assessment of facts.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 190 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty. The Council has limited itself to rejecting
Ð declare that Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC)                 the applicant's arguments merely on the ground that the
     No 2025/97 is partially void within the meaning of             investigation has disclosed something other than that
     the second paragraph of Article 174 of the EC Treaty,          alleged by the applicant. All that the applicant learns from
     since the aim of this action is not to have the current        the statement of the reasons for the contested Regulation
     anti-dumping duties declared void but to have them             is that its claims concerning the dumping determination
     replaced by more stringent measures fixing higher              have been rejected; it cannot ascertain the reasons which,
     anti-dumping duties on imports of advertising matches          in consequence of the rejection of the applicant's
     originating in Japan,                                          arguments, led the Council to impose upon a Japanese
                                                                    competitor a wholly ineffective anti-dumping duty based
Ð maintain the effects of the current anti-dumping                  on its incorrectly calculated dumping margin.
     duties, in accordance with the second paragraph of
     Article 174 of the EC Treaty, until the competent              (1) OJ L 284, 16.10.1997, p. 57.
     institutions adopt the new measures sought by this             (2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
     action, and
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 23 December 1997 by Onno Plug
On 15 October 1997 the Council adopted Regulation                      against the Commission of the European Communities
(EC) No 2025/97 (1) imposing definitive anti-dumping
                                                                                           (Case T-608/97)
duties on imports into the Community of advertising
matches originating in Japan and ordered to collect                                          (98/C 55/62)
definitively the provisional duty imposed. The rate of duty
applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price,
before duty, is to be 43,2 %, with the exception of imports                         (Language of the case: French)
manufactured and exported by some specified companies.
The rates of duty for these companies ranges from 9,9 to            An action against the Commission of the European
27,8 %.                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
The applicant submits that the current anti-dumping                 1997 by Onno Plug, residing at Thôneux (Switzerland),
duties are not high enough in order to prevent the                  represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
material injury that the Community industry, and in                 the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
particular the applicant itself, is still suffering. The            Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson saÁrl, 30 rue de
applicant is therefore asking that the current anti-dumping         Cessange.
duties be replaced by more stringent (i.e. higher) duties by
the competent institutions.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 7(4)(a) and
8(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 (2)                  Ð annul the decision contained in the letter from the
(hereinafter the basic anti-dumping Regulation') on the                 appointing authority of 14 January 1997 and, in so far
ground that the Commission refused to provide the                        as necessary, the express decision rejecting the
FeÂdeÂration EuropeÂenne des Fabricants d'Allumettes (FEFA)              applicant's complaint, adopted on 12 September 1997
with information. That refusal constitutes an infringement               and notified on 22 September 1997,
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/32               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.98
Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs.                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð annul the decision of the Council of the European
                                                                         Union of 3 November 1997 in so far as the Council
The applicant, formerly a temporary servant of the                       thereby refuses to release documents from the Legal
European Commission, has already brought two cases                       Services, including in particular:
before the Court of First Instance (1). The essential facts in
the present case are the same as those in Case T-47/97.                  Ð DOK.R/2026/77 (ENV.118) (AGRI 563),
The present case is directed against the decision of the                 Ð DOK.R/1867/77 (JUR.95) (ENV.106), and
appointing authority, contained in the letter which the
latter sent to the applicant on 14 January 1997, notified
on 22 January 1997. In that letter, the appointing                       Ð DOK.R/2048 dk/77 (ENV.199) (AGRI 568).
authority refused to accede to the applicant's request to
comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 27 February 1992 in Case T-165/89 (2) and thus                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
withdraw the draft decision, as provided for in Article 19
of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
Communities against the Risk of Accident and of                     The applicants in the present case have brought
Occupational Disease, which it drew up on 27 November               proceedings against the Danish Prime Minister concerning
1996 on the basis of the medical opinions of new experts.           the question whether he was entitled to ratify the Treaty
In the present action the applicant seeks the annulment of          on European Union, on the ground that accession to that
the decision contained in the letter of 14 January 1997             Treaty was contrary to Article 20 of the Danish Grundlov
which takes a definitive position both as to the validity of        (Basic Law), which provides that powers vested in the
the draft decision of 27 November 1996 and on the sole              authorities of the Kingdom may, to a specified extent, be
means of challenging that action (by Committee). The                transferred by legislation to international authorities. The
applicant pleads breach of res judicata as well as failure to       case is at present pending before the Danish Hùjesteret
comply with the judgment in Case T-165/89, misuse of                (Supreme Court).
powers, infringement of Articles 18 and 19 of the
Insurance Rules, breach of the principle of sound
management as enshrined, for example, in Article 15 of              In the proceedings before the Hùjesteret, it has, according
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, in the alternative,        to the applicants, become essential to gain access to
infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and             certain documents of the Council of the European Union
Article 12 of the Insurance Rules.                                  concerning legal measures which indicate the extent of the
                                                                    competence transferred to the European Union by the
                                                                    Danish legislation governing accession, including in
(1) Case T-165/89 (OJ C 23, 31.1.1990, p. 9); Case T-47/97 (OJ
    C 142, 10.5.1997, p. 22).                                       particular the question of the application of Article 235 of
(2) [1992] ECR II-367.                                              the Treaty prior to the Maastricht Treaty. During the
                                                                    proceedings before the Hùjesteret, the applicants requested
                                                                    that the Danish Government be ordered to produce a long
                                                                    list of documents, relating in particular to the views
                                                                    expressed by the other Member States and the Council's
                                                                    Legal Service regarding the legal basis for Council
                                                                    Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation
Action brought on 23 December 1997 by Hanne Norup                   of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1), and the
Carlsen and Others against the Council of the European              applicants' pleas were upheld in part by order of the
                              Union                                 Hùjesteret of 3 November 1997. The Hùjesteret did not in
                       (Case T-610/97)                              this connection address the issue of the release of
                                                                    documents held by the Council, an issue of which the
                          (98/C 55/63)                              applicants had notified the Council prior to the order.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                    In the contested decision, the Council acceded to the
                                                                    request for the release of documents, with the exception of
An action against the Council of the European Union was             those setting out the views of the Legal Services of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Council and the Commission, to which the applicants also
Communities on 23 December 1997 by Hanne Norup                      sought access. The Council stated in this connection that
Carlsen, Ingeborg Fangel, Nicolas Fischer, Jùrgen Erik              those views, in accordance with consistent practice, would
Hansen, Marianne Henriksen, Ole Donbñk Jensen,                      not be released, on the ground that publication of the
Yvonne Petersen, Iver Reedtz-Thott, Lars Ringholm and               opinions of the Legal Services on issues dealt with by the
Arne Würgler, represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen, of               Council could adversely affect the public interest in the
the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in                  maintenance of legal certainty and the stability of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-                 Community law, as well as the public interest in ensuring
Rue.                                                                that the Council has access to independent legal advice.