CELEX: C1996/180/82
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co., Ltd against the Council of the European Union (Case T-48/96)

No C 180/32           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 6 . 96
 Action brought on 28 March 1996 by Syndicat                         Action brought on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co.,
 Départemental de Défense du Droit des Agriculteurs                        Ltd against the Council of the European Union
 ( SDDDA ) against Commission of the European                                                ( Case T-48/96 )
                          Communities
                                                                                               ( 96/C 180/82 )
                         Case T-47/96 )
                         ( 96/C 180/81 )                                            (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co .,
 An action against the Commission of the European                    Ltd, represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Bar, Baker & McKenzie, with an address for service
 Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1996               at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolters, 11 rue Goethe,
 by the Syndicat Départemental de Défense du Droit des               Luxembourg.
Agriculteurs ( SDDDA ), whose registered office is at
 Beaucaire , France , represented by Olivier Girard, of the          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nîmes Bar .
                                                                     — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 5/96 in so far as it affects
                                                                         Acme Industry Company Ltd,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — order the Council to pay the costs .
— declare that the European Commission has failed to act
     by not responding clearly to the problem of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments:
     applicability of Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC
     with regard to the monopoly of the French statutory             The applicant, a private company 65 % of which is held by
     social security scheme in the fields of non-life insurance      the Japanese holding company Nisshin Industry Co ., Ltd,
     and life assurance;                                             and whose only activity relates to the production of
                                                                     microwave ovens, challenges Council Regulation No 5/96 ,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            imposing definitive antidumping duties on imports of
                                                                     microwave ovens originating in the People's Republic of
                                                                     China, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      collecting definitively provisional duties .
                                                                     The application is based on the following grounds :
The applicant alleges that the Commission has failed to act
on a complaint which it lodged against the French State for         — infringement of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 on
breach of the provisions of Directives 92/49/EEC and                     protection against dumped or subsidized imports from
92/96/EEC . Those two Directives lay down the principle                  countries not members of the EC ( basic Regulation ),
that all monopolies are to be abolished in the fields of                 because    of the    refusal   of the   Council     and     the
non-life insurance and life assurance and enable any insurer             Commission to calculate the constructed value by
established in the Community to cover any type of risk .                 reference to the sales made by the exporter in the same
                                                                         business sector in the country of export (Japan ),
It claims that the French authorities have systematically
refused to apply those two directives and, in order to              — infringement of the general principle of non-dis­
maintain the monopoly of the statutory scheme , have                     crimination by applying the amounts for SG&A costs
enacted Law No 95/116 of 4 February 1 995 containing                     and profits of the Korean exporter, who has a
miscellaneous social security provisions, Article 43 of which            substantially different commercial structure, in order to
lays down penalties of imprisonment and fine for any person              calculate the constructed normal value of ACME
who ' incites those covered by the legislation to refuse (. . .)         products,
to join a social security organization '. The applicant
concludes that France wishes to maintain the monopoly               — the Council should have applied the limitation provided
system intact.                                                           in Article 2.6 of Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94, for the
                                                                         purpose of determining the amounts of profit to be
                                                                         included in the calculation of the constructed normal
According to the applicant, the Commission's only response               value . Although according to its express wording the
to its complaint was to state that the directives in question            Regulation was not yet applicable, it is a general
do not concern statutory social security schemes, and it used            principle of equity to apply a provision which is
a reference for a preliminary ruling pending before the                  technically not yet in force in so far as it is less onerous
Court of Justice ( Case C-238/94 ) as a pretext for eluding its          for the individual concerned than the previous text.
obligation to state reasons .                                            Alternatively, the Council should have interpreted
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 in the light of
                                                                         Article 2.2.2 of the Uruquay Round Anti-Dumping
                                                                         Code,
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 180/33
— the contested regulation is not adequately reasoned in so            Second plea:
     far as the Council did not consider the applicant's
     argument based on the cooperating Thai producer's                 The Commission wrongly assumed that the criteria for
     request that the normal value for Thailand be                     remission of import duties under Article 13 of the remission
     established on the basis of the sales made by that                regulation were not fulfilled. In monitoring and supervising
     producer's related company on the Japanese market,                imports falling within the Hilton quota, the Commission
                                                                       committed serious errors, and it was solely as a result of
— infringement of the basic Regulation, by making a                    those errors that it was possible for imports to be effected, in
     comparison between the normal value and the export                the quantities now determined and over a period of two
     price which infringes Article 2.9.a(ii ) of that                  years, on the basis of the submission of falsified certificates
     Regulation.                                                       of authenticity. In the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                       misjudged the extend of its misconduct and the legal
                                                                       consequences arising therefrom.
                                                                       Third plea:
Action brought on 12 April 1996 by Primex Produkte
Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and                      The Commission breached essential rules of procedure, by
Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the Commission of                denying Germany's representative at the meeting of experts
                  the European Communities                             of the Member States, held on 4 December 1995 , any
                                                                       opportunity to submit oral comments .
                          ( Case T-50/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/83 )                            Fourth plea:
               (Language of the case: German)                          The Commission breached the applicants' right to a fair
                                                                       hearing, since it did not grant them any direct hearing in
An action against the Commission of the European                       accordance with the law . The Commission was under an
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      obligation to do so, despite the fact that the procedural rules
Instance of the European Communities on 12 April 1996 by               laid down by the Regulation implementing the Community
Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, of                        Customs Code did not provide for direct participation by
Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany), Gebr. Kruse                    the applicants in the proceedings before the Commission .
GmbH, of Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany ), and
Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, of Hamburg ( Federal                    Fifth plea:
Republic of Germany ), represented by Georg M. Berrisch,
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for service in                 Lastly, the contested decision infringes Article 190 of the EC
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles of Messrs                     Treaty, since it is inadequately reasoned .
Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicants claim that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission of 26 January
     1996 in case REM 8/95 , 11 /95 and 12/95 ( COM Doc .              Action brought on 12 April 1996 by Miwon Co., Ltd
     C( 96 ) 180 final ), addressed to the Federal Republic of             against the Council of the European Communities
     Germany, in so far as it concerns the applicants,                                         ( Case T-51/96 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                         96/C 180/84 )
Pleas in law and man agruments:                                                       (Language of the case: English)
By the contested decision, the Commission decided that                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
import duties are not to be remitted in respect of                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
applications made by the applicants and submitted by                   Communities on 12 April 1 996 by Miwon Co . Ltd,
Germany pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation                   represented by Jean-François Bellis, of Van Bael & Bellis,
( EEC ) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 . Those applications                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
related to the import of high-grade beef, known as 'Hilton             of Loesch & Wolters, 11 rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
quality' beef, from Argentina, in respect of which falsified
certificates of authenticity, purporting to be issued by the
Argentine authorities, had been submitted to the customs               The applicant claims that the Court should:
authorities .
                                                                       — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 81/96 of 19 January
First plea:                                                                1996 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on
                                                                           imports of monosodium glutamate originating, inter
The decision was founded on the wrong legal basis . The                    alia, in the Republic of Korea in so far as it imposes a
correct legal basis was Article 239 of the Community                       definitive anti-dumping duty on the applicant and orders
Customs Code and not Article 13 of the Regulation relating                 the collection of provisional anti-dumping duties with
to remission .                                                             respect to products exported by the applicant; and