CELEX: C2000/176/53
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-110/00: Action brought on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods NV against the Commission of the European Communities

C 176/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-                 Action brought on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
    sation for the non-material damage suffered by him and             NV against the Commission of the European Communities
    for the harm done to his career, in a sum equivalent to that
    provided for by Article 50 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                                               (Case T-110/00)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                               (2000/C 176/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
Between 1992 and 1996 the applicant was the Director of the
European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), in which
certain serious malpractices were discovered following an              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
investigation carried out by UCLAF in 1998. On 14 July                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999 the Commission decided not to pursue the disciplinary             European Communities on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
proceedings brought against the applicant, and did not impose          NV, represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar,
any disciplinary measure on him. That decision was sub-                and M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with
sequently criticised in the press and was also, according to the       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
applicant, the subject of criticism by certain officials and           M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
members of the Community institutions. In bringing the
present action, the applicant complains that the Commission
has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide assistance, as          The applicant claims that the Court should:
required by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, since it has
unlawfully refrained from taking the appropriate measures to           (1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods admissible;
defend the applicant against unjustified accusations.
                                                                       (2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000
The applicant is seeking, in particular:                                   introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
                                                                           overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February                    with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;
    2000, in which it expressed an opinion on the applicant’s
    activities as former Director of ECHO for the purposes of          (3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
    proceedings brought by the applicant before the German                 by Free Trade Foods as a result of the safeguard measure
    courts against a German weekly periodical;                             and that the parties should seek to reach agreement on the
                                                                           extent of the damage suffered by Free Trade Foods, and
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the Commission’s              order that, if no such agreement is reached within a time-
    failure to react following a press conference on 19 Nov-               limit to be specified by the Court, the proceedings are to
    ember 1999, in the course of which the Director of OLAF                continue with a view to determining the quantum of the
    called in question the decision adopted by the Commission              damage, and order the Community in any event to pay the
    in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;                 damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified,
                                                                           alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
                                                                           deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            from the date of the application until payment in full;
    reaction by the Commission to an article published in a
    German daily newspaper, in which OLAF called in question
    the said decision of the Commission;                               (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 February
    2000 refusing to authorise the applicant to speak at a
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
    meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on
    Budgetary Control;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 109 of the Council Decision of
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries
    appropriate reaction on the part of the Commission to                  and territories with the European Economic Com-
    certain draft reports prepared, and discussions held, within           munity (2);
    the Committee on Budgetary Control and at the time of
    the debates which took place in the plenary sessions of the        — infringement of the favourable treatment given in the
    Parliament on 11 and 13 April 2000.                                    Treaty (Articles 3(1)(s) and 183(1) EC) to OCT goods;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                           guards concluded within the framework of the WTO;
 ---pagebreak--- 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.