CELEX: C1999/226/53
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-96/99: Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Pieter F. Fleurbaay against the European Investment Bank

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
         in turn, according to the order in which they are                                       (Case T-96/99)
         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
              Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty,                — annul the decision adopted by the European Investment
                                                                            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
the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall be compensated for         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
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 Nether-
time 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
the case shall be in reverse order to that in which the Judges          In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of          Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, of Articles 52 and 53 of
the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be               the Staff Pension Scheme Rules, of Article 119 of the Treaty
designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be          on European Union and of the Conciliation Board’s decision
the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be                    of 5 November 1998, as well as breach of certain general
designated.                                                             principles of law, such as the principle of the protection of
                                                                        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.
 ---pagebreak--- 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(ó), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation,
                                                                            Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 3.5, 3.6 and
— order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings               3.7 of the WTOAD, and makes a manifest error of
    be borne by the defendant.                                              assessment in finding that imports of hardboard were the
                                                                            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.