CELEX: C1997/318/48
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Lema SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-216/97)

C 318/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
the Council did not state any reasons for its decision and           linguist with responsibility at the time for automatic
did not publish its Decision as required by Article 14 ( 2 )         translation in Brussels' was not sufficient positively to
of Regulation (EC ) No 384/96 .                                      identify the applicant, and, even if it were, it was not
                                                                     defamatory.
The second to 14th applicants will suffer loss arising
directly out of the Council's Decision. The Commission's             In support of his claims, the applicant argues in particular
definitive findings in the anti-dumping investigation were           that there is nothing in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations
that, if duties were not imposed, the negative trend of the          to the effect that, in the case of damage caused to an
Community industry would continue, with the possibility              official by statements, allusions or allegations concerning
of its disappearance .                                               his character, the duty to provide assistance applies only
                                                                     where it is established that those statements, allusions or
                                                                     allegations are false. Specifically, for defamation to have
                                                                     taken place it is not necessary that the inaccuracy of the
                                                                     alleged fact be proven, but merely that its accuracy be not
                                                                     proven .
Action brought on 17 July 1997 by Bernard Lavorel
                                                                     The applicant also complains that the inquiry procedure
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     concerning his request for assistance did not give him the
                        ( Case T-214/97 )                            opportunity to state his case .
                          ( 97/C 318/47)
                                                                     Finally, the applicant claims that a parallel file exists in
                                                                     relation to him, and complains of the Commission's
                (Language of the case: French)                       unwillingness to promote him, which, he maintains, is
                                                                     influenced by documents included in that file, of whose
                                                                     existence he was unaware .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 July 1997                 (■) [ 1995 ECR-SC IA, p. 233 .
by Bernard Lavorel, residing in Brussels, represented by
Yves Rosenoer, of the Brussels Bar with an address for
service at 98 , rue J. B. Colyns.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Lema SA against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 15 May 1997 on                                           Case T-216/97 )
     the applicant's complaint by registered letter of
     16 December 1996,                                                                        ( 97/C 318/48 )
— order the Commission to assist the applicant,                                       (Language of the case: French)
— order the Commission to make good the damage                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     suffered by the applicant.
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                     by Lema SA, whose registered office is at Gennevilliers
                                                                     ( France ), represented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
The applicant challenges the refusal of the Commission to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
provide him with assistance, pursuant to Article 24 of the
Staff Regulations, following a number of allegedly
defamatory statements contained in tracts distributed by             — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
the R and D trade union, according to which Mr Lavorel
had directly contributed to the drawing up of a parallel
file concerning another official .                                   — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post­
                                                                           clearance, of the duties in dispute,
The Commission maintains that the tracts in question did             — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
no more than reproduce recitals in the judgment of the                     remission of those duties,
Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-39/93 and T-553/
93 , Baltsavias v. Commission ('). Moreover, the reference
in the publication in question to a 'French former lawyer­           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   by Seiga SA, whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ),
                                                                      respresented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant, which has imported television sets                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
manufactured in Turkey by various companies since 1987/
88 , applies in this case for the annulment of a decision by
the Commission, which held, on an application submitted               The applicant claims that the Court should:
by France, that 'it is justified to effect post-clearance
recovery of import duties, and the remission of those
duties is not justified in an individual case'.                       — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
The facts are similar to those in Cases T-l 86/97 et seq (')          — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post­
                                                                             clearance, of the duties in dispute,
Concerning the legal background, the applicant in this
case argues that the contested decision makes no reference            — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
to it, that there has been insufficient reasoning, and that                  remission of those duties,
both the Turkish customs authorities and the Commission
committed errors . It submits that the Commission failed
to fulfil its obligations and the legitimate expectations             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
which Community importers might place in its action.
This constituted an 'error on the part of the competent
authorities', within the meaning of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 1697/79 , which the person liable could not reasonably
have detected, since the A.TR documents duly
authenticated by the Turkish authorities could not fail to
give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                      in Case T-2 16/97 (').
Community importers, and the latter had no reason to
cast doubt on them .
                                                                      ( ] ) See previous case .
The applicant maintains that all the conditions for
applying Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79
are fulfilled in this case, and that it is entitled to non-post
clearance recovery of the customs duties in question,
having itself acted in good faith, complying with all the
relevant provisions.                                                  Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the
                                                                                 Commission of the European Communities
Finally, the applicant considers that it fulfils all the                                        ( Case T-2 18/97)
conditions in order to benefit from remission of the
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 318/50 )
customs duties in question, pursuant to Article 13 of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 .
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
(') See page 17 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                      by Seiga SA, the successor of High Tech Industries SA,
                                                                      whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ), represented
Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the                by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
          Commission of the European Communities                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
                         ( Case T-2 17/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post­
Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997                         clearance, of the duties in dispute,