CELEX: C2000/176/55
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-127/00: Action brought on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin against the Commission of the European Communities

24.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/31
— illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of                 It should be pointed out that the Commission rejected the
     17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences for           Community Producers’ complaint on the ground that the
     certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,                    complaint was inadmissible, essentially by virtue of Article 27
     1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating                 of Regulation No 2820/98, which provides that ‘Preferences
     products (3), as a result of which Article 2(2) of the              shall normally be granted to producers which are subject to ...
     safeguard measure, which states that the provisions of              anti-subsidy measures’.
     Regulation No 2553/97 are to apply mutatis mutandis, is
     unlawful.
                                                                         In support of their action, the applicants make the following
                                                                         submissions:
(1) OJ L 56 of 1.3.2000, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1, as last amended by Decision 2000/168/EC.
(3) OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26.
                                                                         The contested decision is unlawful in that it is contrary to
                                                                         Community secondary legislation. Regulation No 2820/98
                                                                         does not provide that the existence of anti-subsidy measures
                                                                         precludes the opening of an investigation into the removal of
                                                                         GSP benefits. It provides that GSP benefits are not normally
                                                                         incompatible with anti-subsidy or anti-dumping measures but
                                                                         that those benefits can be withdrawn in manifest cases of
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by DuPont Teijin Films                      subsidisation or other unfair trading practices. The contested
Luxembourg S.A., Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH and                      decision, according to which benefits can never be withdrawn
Toray Plastics Europe S.A. against the Commission of the                 if anti-subsidy measures are in place, is therefore based upon a
                    European Communities                                 misinterpretation of Regulation No 2820/98. The Community
                                                                         Producers’ interpretation of this regulation is also consistent
                                                                         with trade policy, in that it would enable the Commission to
                         (Case T-113/00)                                 examine the possibility of withdrawing benefits from a trading
                                                                         partner who was persistently or grossly infringing international
                         (2000/C 176/54)                                 obligations or WTO rules.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       The Commission has failed to provide adequate reasoning for
                                                                         its decision rejecting the Community Producers’ complaint.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 May 2000 by DuPont Teijin                      (1) OJ L 357 of 30.12.1998, p. 1.
Films Luxembourg S.A. (Luxembourg), Mitsubishi Polyester
Film GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) and Toray Plastics Europe
S.A. (Miribel Cedex, France), represented by Mr. Ian S. Forrester
QC and Mr. James Killick, of White & Case LLP, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested decision;
— order the Commission to pay the costs;
                                                                         Action brought on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin against
— take such other or further steps as justice may require.                      the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-127/00)
On 17 September 1998 the Community producers requested                                            (2000/C 176/55)
the European Commission to investigate whether it was
appropriate to remove General System of Preferences (GSP)
tariff benefits from Indian polyethylene terephthalate film
(‘PET’ film), on the grounds that the subsidies being paid to                               (Language of the case: French)
Indian PET film producers constituted a ‘manifest case of
unfair trading practices’ under the current Article 22 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98, of 21 December 1998,                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 (1). The                  European Communities on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin,
present action is brought by the three major producers of PET            residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
film in Europe against the rejection of that request.                    of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/32                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            were concluded in breach of the Code of Conduct governing
                                                                       the Commission’s relations with interim staff. It follows
— annul the Commission’s decision of 9 April 1999 refusing             that those contracts must be reclassified as contracts of
     to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;                employment with the Commission of indeterminate duration.
— order the Commission to pay the expatriation allowance               In the alternative, the applicant maintains that the concept of
     to the applicant from 1 April 1999, together with default         work done for an international organisation within the
     interest at the rate of 8 % per annum;                            meaning of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
                                                                       does not require the existence of a direct contractual link with
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                       the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant pleads, principally, infringement of Article 4 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. He maintains that the work
done by him as a member of the Commission’s interim                           Removal from the register of Case T-289/97 (1)
staff must be regarded as work done for an international
organisation within the meaning of the final sentence of Article                               (2000/C 176/56)
4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. It is therefore
necessary, for the purposes of calculating the period for which
the applicant worked in the country of employment prior to                                (Language of the case: French)
taking up his duties, to disregard the periods during which he
worked on an interim basis. It follows that the applicant was          By order of 9 March 2000 B. Vesterdorf, sitting as a single
entitled to receive an expatriation allowance.                         Judge, has ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       T-289/97: Peter Cain v Commission of the European Com-
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the     munities.
existence of numerous legal links between him and the
Commission. In addition, his contracts as an interim worker            (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.