CELEX: C1995/159/54
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation against the Council of the European Union (Case T-97/95)

No C 159/26           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
     of one-third of his basic salary between 5 January 1 995        Action brought on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National
     to the end of his contract ( harm to his career ) and,          Chemicals Import &t Export Corporation against the
     provisionally, compensation in the amount of Bfr 1 ,                              Council of the European Union
     subject to increase (harm to family life ),                                               ( Case T-97/95 )
                                                                                                 ( 95/C 159/54 )
— order the Commission to pay to him, in respect of the
     second contested decision, compensation in the amount
     of Bfrs 1 000 000,                                                                 (Language of the case: Englisb)
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Chemicals Import & Export Corporation, represented by
                                                                     Mr Jean-François Bellis, with an address for service in
The applicant explains that he was engaged from 1 April              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue
1 993 by Directorate-General XII, Fusion Programme, of the           Goethe, L-1637 Luxembourg.
Commission as a member of the temporary staff
(Article 2 ( d ) of the Conditions of Employment of other
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Servants of the Communities ) and assigned to the ITER
( International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor )
project as a member of the Director's Office at the centre           — annul the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
located at the University of San Diego . In July 1994 a new                furfuraldehyde originating in the People's Republic of
Project Director was appointed with immediate effect. From                 China, imposed by Council Regulation ( EC )
that time the applicant was excluded from what had been his                No 95/95 O ,
usual duties . At the beginning of January 1 995 the applicant
was informed by the Fusion Programme Director at DG XII              — annul the Council's decision to reject the undertaking
that he had been recalled to Europe for reasons to do with                 proposed by the applicant,
the service; as a new posting he was offered a post as
physicist at the JET laboratory where he had been Assistant
                                                                     — order the Council to bear the costs .
Director and Project Head before being posetd to ITER . The
return date was fixed at 15 April 1995 despite the fact that
the applicant had requested for a later date to be accepted
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
for personal and family reasons .
                                                                     The grounds on the basis of which the legality of the
As regards the decision to reassign him to the Commission,           contested decision is challenged can be summarized as
the applicant pleads, first, infringement of Articles 4.3 and        follows :
4.4 of the agreement on the secondment of staff between the
EAEC and the University of San Diego and abuse of process .
He also pleads error of assessment or defective factual              ( a ) The proceeding was initiated in breach of Articles 5 ( 2 )
grounds and misuse of powers . Finally, the applicant                       and 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 inasmuch as
maintains that the Commission has failed in various ways to                 it concerns all imports of furfuraldehyde from the
comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare of                      People's Republic of China, whether used for the
officials .                                                                 cleaning of lubricating oils or in the manufacture of
                                                                            furfuryl alcohol, whilst the only alleged evidence of
                                                                            injury presented in the complaint and the notice of
As regards the Commission's failure to take steps, as it                    initiation of the proceeding only concerns
should have done, to remedy the situation which was                         furfuraldehyde for use in the cleaning of lubricating
detrimental to him since the entry into office of the new                   oils .
Director, the applicant considers that the institution should
have initiated the procedures provided for in Article 9 of the
abovementioned secondment agreement in the event of                  ( b ) The anti-dumping duty infringes Article 2 ( 1 ) of
disputes between the Director and a member of staff on                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 and also the principle of
secondment .                                                                proportionality as it covers all imports of
                                                                            furfuraldehyde whilst the injury determination is based
                                                                            on the finding that injury has been caused only with
As regards the claims for damages, the applicant states that                respect to furfuraldehyde for use in the cleaning of
the contested decisions are unlawful and that they also                     lubricating oils, which accounts for a minority of
constitute service-related faults which have caused him                     European Union consumption.
obvious and indisputable material and non-material
damage.
                                                                     (c ) The finding that injury has been caused by imports
                                                                            from the PRC in the market for furfuraldehyde used for
                                                                            the cleaning of lubricating oils is vitiated by
                                                                            fundamental contradictions .
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95          LEN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 159/27
( d ) The rejection of the price undertaking proposed by the         Jean-Pierre Aubineau, residing in Brussels (Belgium ),
       applicant is based on invalid grounds .                       represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
C ) OJ No L 15, 21 . 1 . 1995 , p . 11 .                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — annul the decision of J. P. Contzen, contained in his note
                                                                           of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily transferring the
Action brought on 10 April 1995 by Hans-Günter vom Endt                    applicant to the post of Adviser to the Head of the ISEI
against the Council of the European Union and the                          ( Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics ),
         Commission of the European Communities                           Ispra ,
                        ( Case T-100/95 )
                                                                     — award the applicant one ecu by way of token
                          ( 95/C 159/55 )
                                                                          compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
                                                                           him,
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     — reimburse to the applicant the whole of such personal
An action against the Council of the European Union and                   expenses as he may incur in moving to Ispra and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    installing himself there,
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 April 1995 by Hans-Günter vom Endt,                — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
Wuppertal ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus , Rechtsanwälte,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Munster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .                   The applicant contests the decision of the appointing
                                                                     authority of the Joint Rersearch Centre (JRC ) compulsorily
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         transferring him to Ispra as Adviser to the Head of the
                                                                     Institute for Systems Engineering and Informations (ISEI)
                                                                     with effect from 1 April 1995 , which was subsequently
1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant             deferred to 1 May 1995 .
      SLOM I compensation for the period from 20 May 1 984
      to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 100 965,13
      together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May 1992         The applicant was engaged by the JRC as a member of the
      and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings ;              temporary staff pursuant to a contract of three years'
                                                                     duration, which was subsequently changed to a contract for
2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case          an indefinite period from 1 March 1993 .
      T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
      Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     The applicant disputes the legality of the contested decision
                                                                     on the grounds that it contravenes :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     ( a ) the contract of employment concluded between the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                  Commission and the applicant, as amended by the
Case T-20/94 .                                                               transaction referred to above, in that it fixes Brussels as
                                                                             the place of employment;
                                                                     ( b ) Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, according to which
                                                                             the appointing authority may compulsorily transfer an
                                                                             official or a member of the temporary staff solely in the
                                                                             interest of the service;
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by Jean-Pierre Aubineau
   against the Commission of the European Communities                (c ) the principle of the protection of legitimate
                        ( Case T-102/95 )                                    expectations , in that the defendant failed to comply
                          ( 95/C 159/56 )                                    with the provisions of the settlement terminating the
                                                                             proceedings in Case T-91 /91 ; and
                 (Language of the case: French)                      (d ) the principle of good management and sound
                                                                             administration .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1995 by