CELEX: C1995/229/51
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 June 1995 by Francisca Soto Revaliente against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-135/95)

2 . 9 . 95            I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/23
Action brought on 22 June 1995 by Dysan Magnetics                              complainants account for at least 25 % of total
Limited and Review Magnetics (Macao ) Limited against the                      production of 3,5" disks .
           Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-134/95 )                               (') OJ No C 84, 6 . 4 . 1995, p . 4 .
                           ( 95/C 229/50 )
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Action brought on 29 June 1995 by Francisca Soto
                                                                         Revaliente against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                                  Case T-135 /95 )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                 ( 95/C 229/51 )
Instance of the European Communities on 22 June 1995 by
Dysan Magnetics Limited and Review Magnetics ( Macao )                                   (Language of the case: French)
Limited, represented by Mark Clough and Mark Brealey,
Barristers, instructed by Rosenblatt, Solicitors, with an                An action against the Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, L-1661 .                                       Instance of the European Communities on 29 June 1995 by
                                                                         Francisca Soto Revaliente, residing at Malaga ( Spain ),
                                                                         represented by Jean-Francois Neven, of the Brussels Bar,
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                         of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich.
— annul the decision of 6 April 1995 to initiate                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
      anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
      magnetic disks ( 3,5" micro disks ) originating in Canada,         — annul the decision of 6 September 1994, as confirmed by
      Indonesia, Macao and Thailand ( J ),                                    the decision of the Commission notified on 4 April 1995 ,
                                                                              as set out in the complaint,
— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
      these proceedings .
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The applicant challenges the Commission's decision to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      consider her absence during the period running from
                                                                         6 March to 25 October 1994 to be irregular and not to pay
                                                                         to her the remuneration for that period pursuant to
The applicants submit that the contested decision is                     Article 60 of the Staff Regulations . She considers that that
unlawful for two reasons :                                               decision is vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons
                                                                         and has been taken contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the
                                                                         Staff Regulations .
( a ) The decision is in breach of Article 5 ( 7 ) of Regulation
        ( EC ) No 3283/94, which provides that 'a complaint              The applicant points out in that respect that the
       shall be rejected where there is insufficient evidence of          Commission's decision is based on an alleged medical
       either dumping or injury to justify proceeding with the           check-up which purportedly was carried out on 16 March
       case'. The complaint, which was made by a small group              1994, whereas no medical check-up intended to verify her
        of Community disc manufacturers, was based on                     fitness for work took place at that time . Although she in fact
        unsubstantiated allegations . Indeed, for the most part,          underwent on that date an examination by a board of
        it was an exact copy of an earlier complaint made by the          experts entrusted by the Commission to verify her fitness to
        same producers; the only difference was that the                  travel to Brussels with a view to being heard in the context of
        countries had been changed.                                       a disciplinary procedure, and although it considered that the
                                                                          disease from which the applicant suffered did not make it
                                                                          impossible for her to travel to Brussels, the board did not,
 ( b ) The decision is contrary to Article 5 ( 4 ) of Regulation          however, make a decision in respect of her fitness to
        ( EC ) No 3283/94, which provides that 'an investigation          work .
        shall not be initiated . . . unless it has been determined
        that the complaint has been made by or on behalf of the           In those circumstances, the applicant considers that the
        Community industry' and 'no investigation shall be                contested decision was taken in the absence of a prior
        initiated when Community producers expressly                      medical check-up regarding her fitness for work and that,
        supporting a complaint account for less than 25 % of              therefore, it is contrary to Article 60 of the Staff
        total production of the like product produced by the              Regulations, on the basis of the concept of ' unauthorized
         Community industry'. The Commission has not made a               absence which is duly established'.
         lawful determination that the complaint is made on
         behalf of the Community industry, nor that the