CELEX: C2000/176/43
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-91/00: Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind against the Commission of the European Communities

C 176/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.6.2000
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                  This action is directed against Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 174/2000 of 24 January 2000 repealing Council Regu-
                         (Case T-81/00)                                   lation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive
                                                                          anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable
                        (2000/C 176/41)                                   pocket flint lighters originating in Japan (1).
                                                                          The applicants represent more than 75 % of Community
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       production of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters.
                                                                          They are suffering the consequences of failure to adopt the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 anti-dumping measures concerned.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associa-
                                                                          In support of their action the applicants allege:
ção Comercial de Aveiro, a non-profit-making organisation,
whose registered office is at Aveiro (Portugal), represented by
João Amaral e Almeida and Bernardo Diniz de Ayala, of the                — manifest error in the appreciation of the facts, having
Lisbon Bar.                                                                    regard to the total lack of correspondence between the
                                                                               results of the preparatory inquiry conducted by the
                                                                               Commission and the content of the provisions enacted by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the Council. It is pointed out in this connection that,
                                                                               according to the Commission’s investigations, the average
a) Declare admissible the present action and, accordingly,                     price of the products imported from Japan amounted to a
     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                      reduction of 22,9 % in relation to the average weighted
     Communities approving the claim for payment of the                        price of the Community producers, despite the upward
     balance relating to file 891038 P3 of 30 November 1999,                   effect which the anti-dumping duty of 35,7 % imposed by
     notified to the applicant on 27 January 2000 by way of                    Regulation No 3433/91 exerted on the prices charged;
     decision No 00723 of the DAFSE — Departamento para
     os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu;                                 — breach of Article 253 of the Treaty, inasmuch as there is
                                                                               plainly a conflict between the facts and the contents of the
b) Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      contested regulation. In that regard, they claim that the
                                                                               regulation does not reveal a single fact which might lend
                                                                               support to the repeal of the anti-dumping measures. On
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the contrary, all the recitals in the preamble to the
                                                                               regulation emphasise the persistence of a state of grave
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those                   danger for the Community industry and the gradual loss
in Case T-80/00.                                                               of profitability recorded in that sector.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 22 of 27 January 2000, p. 16.
Action brought on 15 April 2000 by Bic S.A., Flamagas
S.A. and Swedish Match S.A. against Council of the
                        European Union
                                                                          Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind against
                         (Case T-82/00)                                          the Commission of the European Communities
                        (2000/C 176/42)
                                                                                                    (Case T-91/00)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2000/C 176/43)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
Communities on 15 April 2000 by Bic S.A., Flamagas S.A. and
Swedish Match S.A., represented by Alessio Vianello.                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Adolfo Kind,
                                                                          represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2000 of 24 January                 an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
     2000 and order the Council to pay the costs.                         Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10
                                                                           Rue Mathias Hardt.
— annul the decision of the Settlements Office of the Joint
     Sickness Insurance Scheme authorising reimbursement in
     respect of services provided to the applicant’s son, on the           The applicants claim that the Court should:
     ground that the authorisations in question were issued on
     a different basis from that argued by the applicant, with
     the support of all the relevant documents;                            — in accordance with Article 230 EC, annul the Commission
                                                                               decision notified by letter of 26 January 2000, No 02418,
— annul the consequent settlements on the further ground of                    received on 9 February 2000, signed by the Director-
     calculation errors;                                                       General for Agriculture, J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           — and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
                                                                               Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a former Commission official, challenges the                — order the Commission to pay the costs in any event.
decision altering the legal basis for reimbursement of expenses
incurred by reason of the serious illness of a dependent son of
his. The applicant maintains that the son requires paramedical
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
assistance, having to be hospitalised in order to overcome
mental crises.
                                                                           At the end of November 1998, the applicant companies were
Until the end of 1998, the Commission reimbursed those                     allocated their reference quantity for 1999, based on the
expenses under Paragraph 1 of Title X of Annex 1 to the Rules              average quantity of bananas imported from third countries
on Sickness Insurance, that is to say as paramedical assistance.           in the three-year period 1994/1995/1996. They therefore
As from 1999, however, reimbursement of the same expenses,                 submitted applications for the quarterly certificates to be used
incurred in the same factual and legal context, was authorised             during 1999, and obtained certificates for the importation of
on the basis of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of Title X, that is to say          ACP bananas in the full amount requested. Subsequently
as nursing attendance at home.                                             finding themselves unable to use those certificates in the fourth
                                                                           quarter of 1999 they requested, in substitution, certificates
In support of his claims, the applicant argues:                            for importation from third countries and release from the
— that in the present case it was unlawful to apply Paragraph              guarantees provided. The present action is directed against the
     2(c) and (d) of Title X of Annex 1 to the Rules on Sickness           negative decision of the Commission on that point.
     Insurance (cost of nursing attendance at home);
— that the services in question are paramedical in nature,                 In support of their claims, the applicants argue:
     maintaining in that respect that determination of the care
     needed by individual patients is an exclusively medical               — Infringement by the Commission of Council Regulation
     decision;                                                                 (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common
                                                                               organization of the market in bananas (1), as amended by
— that in this case the professional qualification of a medical
                                                                               Regulation (EC) No 1637/98. By that latter regulation, the
     auxiliary is needed.
                                                                               Council intended to adapt the common organisation of
                                                                               the market to the rulings of the Panel and the Appellate
                                                                               Body of the World Trade Organisation, with the removal
                                                                               of the distinction between Category A operators and
                                                                               Category B operators, which was censured as contrary to
                                                                               GATT rules.
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Alessandrini Srl
and Others against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     — Illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                               28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                          (Case T-93/00)                                       implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
                                                                               regarding imports of bananas into the Community (2). By
                         (2000/C 176/44)                                       that regulation, the Commission introduced measures
                                                                               ‘crystallising’ the situation created by Regulation No
                                                                               404/93, in its original version, in favour of operators in
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                            Category B, by fixing as the reference period for the
                                                                               allocation of the annual individual quantity the years
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      1994-1995-1996. Thanks to the choice of that reference
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     period, Category B operators may import bananas from
European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Alessandrini Srl                      third countries with the certificates obtained as operators
and Others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and                           of that category, whereas Category A operators are denied
Gabriele Donà, both of the Padua Bar, with an address for                      that possibility.