CELEX: C1997/212/57
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bösche against the European Parliament (Case T-128/97)

No C 212/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant assembles bicycles in France under its own              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
brand name ' Starway' and under the brand names of its                in Case T-16/97 P ). '
customers for bicycles made to order.
                                                                       1 OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
This action is for the annulment of Article 2 of Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97 of 10 January 1997 extending
the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation
( EEC ) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People's
Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from
the People's Republic of China, in so far as it applies to            Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman
imports by the applicant.                                                           against the European Commission
                                                                                                 ( Case T-l 16/97 )
The applicant considers that the Council has infringed
                                                                                                    ( 97/C 212/56 )
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 by extending the anti-dumping duty                                   (Language of the case: French)
applicable to imports of bicycles to imports of parts of
bicycles without the conditions in Article 13 (2 ) of that            An action against the European Commission was brought
regulation, and particularly Article 13 (2 ) ( b ) thereof,           before the Court of First Instance of the European
being fulfilled. The Council wrongly concluded that                   Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eugene Kimman,
bicycle parts originating in China imported by the                    residing in Riga ( Latvia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,
applicant during the period of the investigation constituted          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
 assembled product.                                                    Rue de Cessange .
The applicant maintains, moreover, that, contrary to                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Article 190 of the Treaty, the contested regulation is not
 supported by an adequate statement of reasons, in that the           — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996
 grounds relied on to justify the extension of the anti­                   rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
 dumping duty to the imports of bicycle parts by the                       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of
 applicant bear no logical relation to the conclusion they                 the Staff Regulations,
 are alleged to support.
                                                                       — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                           expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne                       proceedings.
                against the European Commission
                         ( Case T-l 15/97)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                           ( 97/C 212/55 )
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       in Case T-l 6/97 ( M.
                  (Language of the case: French)
  An action against the European Commission was brought                (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
  before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Communities on 16 April 1997 by Eliane De Bruyne,
  residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the
  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche against
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               the European Parliament
                                                                                                   ( Case T-128/97 )
  — annul the Commission decision of 20 June 1996                                                      97/C 212/57
       rejecting the applicant's request that the Commission
       consider the possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of                        (Language of the case: French)
       the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought
  — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
       adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                    Communities on 22 April 1997 by Lars Bosche, residing
       expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
       proceedings .                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 212/29
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                from the date on which she was retired until her
                                                                            reinstatement, together with interest at the legal rate
— annul the decision of the Parliament not to promote                       of 8 % per annum,
     the applicant to Grade LA 4 for the promotions year
     1996 ,                                                            — annul, if necessary, the letter of 9 October 1996 from
                                                                            Klaus Hansch, President of the European Parliament,
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                    informing the applicant of the Bureau's decision,
                                                                            referred to above,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — order the European Parliament to pay the costs in
The applicant, an official in Grade LA 5 , challenges the                   their entirety.
European Parliament's decision not to promote him to
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Grade LA 4 for the promotions year 1996 . He maintains
that the Parliament has offered no explanation in                      The applicant states that the Court of First Instance
justification of its refusal to promote him, even though the           annulled a decision taken by the Parliament in 1994,
consultative committee on promotions had been                          retiring her from her post ( 1 ). Following that judgment,
recommending him since the promotions year 1995 . In his               the Parliament adopted a new decision by which it
submission , the contested decision is therefore vitiated by           'confirms' its 1994 decision retiring the applicant from her
a total failure to state reasons .
                                                                       post and rejects her candidature for the posts of Director­
                                                                       General in DG I and of Special Adviser at the Epicentre in
The applicant further submits that the Parliament either               Brussels .
failed to carry out a comparative examination of the
merits of the applicant and other officials eligible for               The applicant maintains, first, that the Parliament did not
promotion to Grade LA 4, or carried out such an                        give effect to all the legal consequences entailed in the
examination without taking account of his staff reports                judgment of the Court of First Instance since, by virtue of
and without seeking information on his merits allowing                 being annulled, the unlawful decision adopted in 1994 is
their ' notional absence' to be compensated for. By                    retrospectively deemed never to have existed . Thus the
adopting the contested decision, the Parliament therefore              applicant should have been restored to the same legal
infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, committed a             position as the one she had at the time when the annulled
manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of            decision was adopted, and the Parliament was not entitled
equality of treatment between officials eligible for                   to use that decision as the basis for the decision contested
promotion.                                                             in the present case. Thus the Parliament has acted in
                                                                       contravention of Article 176 of the EC Treaty and the
                                                                       general principle of res judicata.
                                                                       Article 25 , second paragraph, and Article 50 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations have also been infringed, in that the contested
 Action brought on 23 April 1997 by Carmen Gomez de                    decision does not enable the grounds for the applicant's
            Enterria against the European Parliament                   retirement from her post to be ascertained with certainty
                         ( Case T-131 /97 )                            and precision, nor does it establish that such a step was in
                                                                       the interests of the service, which would have enabled
                           ( 97/C 212/58
                                                                        Article 50 of the Staff Regulations to be properly invoked .
                 (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant also emphasizes that the manner of the
                                                                        decision's adoption gave her no opportunity to defend her
 An action against the European Parliament was brought                  interests effectively, since the appointing authority ( in this
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                     case, the Bureau of the Parliament) disregarded the
 Communities on 23 April 1997 by Carmen Gomez de                        observations which she had submitted concerning the issue
 Enterria, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric                  in question, which amounts to a breach of her right to a
 Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          fair hearing.
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
 Fort Rheinsheim .                                                      Furthermore, the contested decision is vitiated, in that it is
                                                                        ultra vires and involves a misuse of powers, in so far as it
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            was adopted on grounds other than the interests of the
                                                                        service stipulated by Article 50 of the Staff Regulations
 — annul the decision taken by the Bureau of the                        and in circumstances such that there is no legally
      European Parliament at its meeting of 15 and 16 July              acceptable justification for it . The applicant concludes that
      1996 ( Ref.: PE 251.357/BUR) in its capacity as                   the Parliament used its powers for purposes other than
      appointing authority,                                             those for which they were conferred .
 — as a consequence of the forthcoming judgment, rule                   Lastly, the applicant argues that the Parliament did not
      that, in accordance with Article 176 of the Treaty of             fulfil its obligation to take decisions affecting the personal
      Rome, the appointing authority must reinstate the                 circumstances of officials within a reasonable length of
      applicant with full rights, ensuring in particular that           time . The decision adopted by the Bureau at its meeting
      she is restored to the post from which she was retired,           on 15 and 16 July 1996 was not communicated to her
      at the same grade, and paid the salary arrears due                until 9 October 1996 , after she had addressed requests to