CELEX: C2001/118/112
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-36/01: Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

21.4.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/41
—     that, in any event, a period of three and a half years            —     Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 3(8) of the basic dumping
      elapsed between 1 December 1995, the date on which he                   regulation in determining that the Community industry
      was first found to be suffering from invalidity, and his                has suffered material injury,
      reinstatement in service on 16 June 1999, a fairly long
      period of time during which the applicant’s home in               —     Article 3(6) of the basic dumping regulation in determin-
      Belgium had to be kept up and maintained in order to be                 ing that imports from the targeted countries caused
      ready for use on his return to Belgium. Further, the                    material injury to the Community industry, and
      applicant incurred substantial costs prior to moving to
      Belgium.                                                          —     Articles 20(4), 20(5) and 6(9) of the basic dumping
                                                                              regulation, Article 253 EC as well as the applicant’s right
                                                                              to a fair hearing.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-35/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against
                                                                            the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                        (2001/C 118/111)
                                                                                                   (Case T-36/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 118/112)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka                                        (Language of the case: English)
Electronic Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under Chinese
Law, represented by Paul Waer, of the Brussels Bar.                     An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel,
                                                                        established under the laws of Belgium, represented by Susanne
                                                                        Möbus of Müller-Boré & Parnter, Munich (Germany).
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000
      of 27 November 2000 in so far as it imposes an anti-
      dumping duty on Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd.,             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      and;
                                                                        —     annul or alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of
                                                                              30 November 2000 (case R 0137/2000-1);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a company incorporated
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
under Chinese Law, whose object is to manufacture high
technology products. It claims that, by imposing anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain retail electronic weighing scales          Trade mark concerned:          A design applied to a surface
manufactured and exported by the applicant, the defendant                                              of the goods in accordance with
has infringed various provisions of the Council Regulation                                             Article 63(1), of the regulation on
No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from                                                    the Community trade mark (Case
countries not members of the European Communities (1) (the                                             R 0137/2000-1).
basic dumping regulation). It is submitted that the Council has
infringed:                                                              Product or service:            Classes 11, 19 and 21.
—     Article 2(7)c of the basic dumping regulation in denying          Challenged        decision     Refusal of registration by the
      that the applicant could be granted market economy                before the Board of            Examiner.
      status,                                                           Appeal:
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
Grounds submitted:            — Infringement of Article 7(1)b            The applicant states that, nearly four years after its complaint,
                                  of Regulation n. 40/94.                the Commission has not taken any provisional measure or
                              — Infringement of Article 7(3) of          adopted a definitive decision, and that the contested system is
                                  Regulation n. 40/94.                   therefore still being applied, even though it was accepted by
                                                                         the Commission from the start of the procedure that it was
                              — Infringement of the appli-               not consistent with Community law.
                                  cant’s right of defence.
Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against
         Commission of the European Communities                          Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau against the Commission of the European Com-
                         (Case T-42/01)                                                              munities
                       (2001/C 118/113)                                                           (Case T-43/01)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (2001/C 118/114)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des                                    (Language of the case: French)
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B., established in
Brussels, represented by Luc Misson, Laurent Denis and
Patrick Mbaya Kapita, Avocats, with an address for service in            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Luxembourg.                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau, residing in Beersel (Belgium), represented by Eric
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Boigelot, avocat, address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
      measures within a reasonable time following the appli-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
      No 17;
                                                                         —    annul the decision of the appointing authority to assign
—     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the                      the applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, to the post
      necessary measures within one month against the parties                 of adviser on consumer information working to the Head
      complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant                of Unit Health and Consumer Protection SANCO.D.4
      to Regulation No 17;                                                    ‘Food law and biotechnology’, as it emerges from the
                                                                              organisational chart for DG SANCO of 15 June 2000 and
                                                                              the explicit decision adopted on 1 August 2000 by
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                              Mr Robert Coleman, Director General of the Directorate-
                                                                              General ‘Consumer policy and consumer health protec-
                                                                              tion’, brought to the applicant’s notice on 28 August
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               2000;
The applicant states that on 1 July 1997 it lodged a complaint           —    order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as compen-
on the basis of Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now                      sation for non-material damage, BEF 1 as provisional
Articles 39 EC and 81 EC) concerning the transfer system for                  damages in respect of injury assessed at BEF 10 000,
professional football players applied by organisations such as                subject to increase or decrease in the course of proceed-
FIFA, URBSFA and the Ligue professionelle de Football de                      ings;
Belgique. Following that complaint, registered under
No IV/36.583-SETCA-FGTB/FIFA, URBSFA, the Commission
initiated a procedure against FIFA.                                      —    in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.