CELEX: C2004/059/42
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-417/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Fédération Internationale des Maisons de l'Europe (FIME) against the Commission of the European Communities

6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/25
The applicant submits that the Council failed to determine the            —     annul the implied decision to reject the applicant’s
normal value in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner                      complaint submitted on 27 May 2003 in accordance
within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/                   with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and seeking
96 (1), as modified, and in conformity with its duty of due care.               the annulment of the contested decision;
The Commission, who initiated an anti-dumping procedure
under Article 5 of the Regulation, should not have ignored the            —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
anti-dumping rule according to which costs of by-products                       EUR 20 000 assessed on an equitable basis, subject to
should not be taken into account, but instead should be                         increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, in
deducted, in the normal value determination, in order to meet                   respect of damages for non-material harm and harm to
the need for a normal value determined in an appropriate and                    his career, on the basis both of substantial irregularities
not unreasonable manner. According to the applicant, the                        and of significant delay in the writing of the 2001 report
Commission was aware of the difference between the costs of                     in a particularly distressing period for the applicant;
production related to the production of para-cresol, on the
one hand, and the costs of production related specifically to             —     order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with
the by-products (sodium sulfite and mixed phenol), on the                       Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
other hand. By extending the scope of the investigation to the                  First Instance.
two by-products and by taking into account the by-products
in the normal value determination, the Commission violated
the duty of due diligence.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to
respect the duty of good administration and that it violated              The applicant claims, firstly, a breach of Articles 26 and 43 of
Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 by failing to calculate            the Staff Regulations, of the general provisions for giving effect
a normal value for the like product only.                                 to Article 43 as adopted by the Bureau of the European
                                                                          Parliament on 8 March 1999 and of the instructions relating
                                                                          to the procedure for the writing of staff reports.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22.12.1995 on protection
    against dumped imports from countries not members of the
    European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1).                       He also pleads misuse of powers and infringement of general
                                                                          principles of law, such as respect for the rights of the defence,
                                                                          the principle of good administration, the principle of the
                                                                          protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to have
                                                                          regard for the welfare of officials, the principle of equal
                                                                          treatment and those general principles requiring the AIPN to
                                                                          take a decision only on the basis of legally permissible grounds,
                                                                          namely those which are pertinent and not tainted by a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment, fact or law.
Action brought on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis
              against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-416/03)
                          (2004/C 59/41)
                                                                          Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Fédération
                                                                          Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe (FIME) against the
                   (Language of the case: French)                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-417/03)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                             (2004/C 59/42)
on 19 December 2003 by Angel Angelidis, resident in
Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision of the Secretary General of the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      European Parliament taken on 4 March 2003 definitively              European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Fédération
      adopting the applicant’s staff report for 2001;                     Internationale des Maisons de l’Europe, established in Saar-
                                                                          brücken (Germany), represented by Pierre Soler-Couteaux,
—     annul that staff report for 2001;                                   lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/26                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            6.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Following an inquiry by the European Anti-Fraud Office
                                                                           (OLAF), which established that Maison de l’Europe Avignon
                                                                           Méditerranée had failed to complete certain projects for
—     annul the decision of 9 October 2003, in which the                   which it had received grants and that it had accordingly
      Commission applied set-off in two respects, on the                   misappropriated Community funds (1), the Commission took
      ground that the decision is wrong in law;                            the view that these grants fell to be repaid to it by the applicant.
—     rule that the European Commission is liable in respect of
      three wrongful acts or omissions:
                                                                           In support of its application for annulment, the applicant
                                                                           argues that the decision to apply set-off to the overpayment of
      —     by offending against the principles of legitimate              the subsidy for the year 2002 was in breach of the principles
            expectations and good faith;                                   of legitimate expectations and of good administration, in that
                                                                           the Commission had led the applicant to expect that it could
                                                                           cover losses arising through some of its projects by using its
      —     by continually failing thereafter to observe the               own funds and subscriptions from its members, without
            contractual time-limits for payment of the grants;             thereby rendering this expenditure ineligible.
      —     by failing to fulfil its obligation under Article 155 of
            the EC Treaty (now Article 211 EC) to ensure that              The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the
            the measures taken by it are applied, and by failing           obligation to state reasons for the contested decision.
            to perform public functions or duties in that there
            have been material omissions on its part and an
            unlawful failure to fulfil its duty to act and to
            monitor the proper use of Community funds;
                                                                           It also argues that it is not required to repay to the Commission
                                                                           the sums allegedly misappropriated by Maison de l’Europe
—     rule that these omissions have caused loss to FIME for               Avignon Méditerranée, as it did not breach its duties of
      which the Commission is liable to make compensation;                 supervision and monitoring in any way. It accordingly submits
                                                                           that the contested decision has no legal basis and contains a
                                                                           manifest error of assessment.
—     rule that the applicant, FIME, has suffered non-pecuniary
      damage amounting to EUR 300 000 and order payment
      of that amount, together with interest for late payment;
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of good
—     rule that the applicant, FIME, has suffered pecuniary loss           administration and the duty to exercise care in that the
      amounting to EUR 210 000 and order payment of that                   Commission failed to give full consideration to the matter in
      amount, together with interest for late payment;                     question.
—     order the Commission to pay to it the sum of
      EUR 10 000 in respect of irrecoverable expenditure;                  In support of its claim for damages, the applicant claims that
                                                                           the Commission committed three errors which have caused
                                                                           the applicant unavoidable loss and damage, both pecuniary
—     order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.                  and non-pecuniary. The failures for which the Commission is
                                                                           alleged to be responsible are breach of the principle of
                                                                           legitimate expectations already considered in the context of
                                                                           the application for annulment, failure to observe contractual
                                                                           time-limits for the payment of grants and inadequate scrutiny
                                                                           of the use of funds provided by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1) See also Case T-43/03 Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée
By the contested decision, the Commission has applied set-off                  v Commission, published in OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 39, and
in two respects to the operating grant due to the applicant for                Case T-100/03 Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée v
                                                                               Commission, published in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 46.
the year 2003, first, in deducting the overpayment for the year
2002, and, secondly, in recovering the grants paid, through
FIME, to one of its members, namely Maison de l’Europe
Avignon Méditerranée, in respect of projects that the latter had
failed to complete.