CELEX: C2000/273/22
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 May 2000 in Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — None)

23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 273/13
dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     Action brought on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, v                        Electronics N.V. against the Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                                         Union.
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for suspension
of operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000
on withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for                                          (Case T-177/00)
human use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                          (2000/C 273/23)
28 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000 on                               (Language of the case: English)
      withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
      use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) is suspended
      with regard to the applicant.                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Communities on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips Elec-
                                                                           tronics N.V., represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Filip
                                                                           Ragolle of Stanbrook-Hooper, Brussels.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC, the
                                                                                 Council’s decision to reject the Commission proposal for
                                                                                 a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     duty on imports of certain parts of television camera
                              INSTANCE                                           systems originating in Japan;
                                                                           —     order, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) EC, the
                          of 18 May 2000
                                                                                 Council to make good any damage caused to the applicant
                                                                                 by its unlawful rejection of the Commission’s proposal
in Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the                          for a Regulation or, alternatively, its failure to impose
                     European Communities                                        adequate protective measures before the expiry of the
                                                                                 15 month deadline;
     (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — None)                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
                                                                                 Council.
                          (2000/C 273/22)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           The present application arises out of the fact that the Council
In Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                    did not adopt the Commission’s proposal of 7 April 2000 for
Commission of the European Communities, in service at the                  a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, residing at Besozzo (Italy),           on imports of certain parts of television camera systems
represented by V. Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar, of Via Speroni 14,          originating in Japan (COM(2000) 195 final). According to the
Varese, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   applicant, the Council’s failure to achieve a simple majority in
G. Valsesia) — application for interim measures in the form of             support of the Commission’s proposal combined with the
suspension of operation of the decision removing him from                  expiry of the 15-month time limit of Article 6(9) of the Basic
his post, adopted by the Commission on 30 September 1999                   Regulation (1) amounts to a definitive negative decision, which
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order               it challenges in the present case.
on 18 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           The applicant’s case for annulment falls basically into two
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                   alternative parts. On the one hand, the applicant argues that,
                                                                           at the end of the 15-month time limit, the Council ultimately
2.    The costs are reserved.                                              had no power to reject the Commission’s proposal, since it
                                                                           had previously failed to involve itself in the fact finding and
                                                                           procedural aspects of the case. Under the current Basic
                                                                           Regulation, the Council has limited itself to the possibility of
                                                                           amending some of the modalities of the proposal, while