CELEX: C1997/370/22
Language: en
Date: 1997-12-06 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 October 1997 by EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimentação e Cereais, SA, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-270/97)

C 370/ 10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6 . 12 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              if a determination has been made that the complaint is
                                                                         supported by a number of Community producers
                                                                         properly constituting the 'Community industry'. The
— declare the Commission decision to initiate the Third                  term ' Community industry' is defined in the Basic
    Investigation of certain cotton fabrics originating in               Regulation by reference to EU producers of the like
    China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey                  product. As the Commission has previously taken the
    illegal and void,                                                    position that unbleached cotton fabrics are like
                                                                         products to bleached, printed and dyed fabrics, the
                                                                         Commission's initiation of the current investigation
— take such other steps as justice may require, and                      having regard only to the position of EU producers of
                                                                         unbleached cotton fabrics suggests that it improperly
                                                                         assessed the support for or opposition to the
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant                 Eurocoton complaint under the Basic Regulation.
    in the present proceedings .
                                                                     — infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty, by totally
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      failing to explain in the Notice or in any other context
                                                                         the relevant factual circumstances upon which its
                                                                         decision to initiate the proceeding was based, in
The applicant, the European Community's largest                          particular concerning the decision of the Council in
importer, stockist and distributor of unbleached cotton                  May 1997 to terminate the second cotton fabric
fabrics, challenges the Commission decision to initiate
                                                                         investigation concerning the same countries and the
anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports into the
                                                                         same products without imposition of any protective
Community of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in
                                                                         measures. By failing to give this explanation while, at
the People's Republic of China , Egypt, India , Indonesia ,              the same time, requiring in the Notice that interested
Pakistan and Turkey. The applicant claims that this
                                                                         parties make themselves known without delay and
decision was first and foremost a political decision taken
                                                                         provide the Commission with relevant information
under pressure, particularly from France .
                                                                         within quite short time-limits, the Commission has
                                                                         precluded such parties from fully and effectively
The applicant submits that the Commission has:                           commenting and providing relevant evidence on the
                                                                         actual situation .
— misused its powers by exerting its responsibilities
    under the EC Treaty with regard to application of
     Community measures to protect trade with the
     intention primarily of supporting purely political
     interests   in   one  of the   Member     States  and   of
    circumventing a definitive decision taken by the                 Action brought on 14 October 1997 by EPAC, Empresa
     Council only days earlier that imposition of protective         para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais, SA, against the
     anti-dumping measures on the same products imported                      Commission of the European Communities
     from the same five countries was not justified under                                   ( Case T-270/97 )
     the terms of the Basic Regulation; the same
     Commission act is also contrary to the general                                           ( 97/C 370/22 )
     principle of Community law non bis in idem and to
     the requirements of proper administration;                                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— abused its discretion under the provisions of the
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
     Community's Basic Regulation relating to the                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     initiation of anti-dumping investigations, in particular        Instance of the European Communities on 14 October
     Article 5 ( 3 ), by not taking into account the fact that        1997 by EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimentagao
     the complaint of Eurocoton ( Committee of the Cotton            Cereais, SA, whose registered office is at Avenida Almi­
     and Allied Textile industries of the EC ) which
                                                                     rante Gago Coutinho, No 26, Lisbon, represented by Joao
     specifically raised the issue of Community interest and         Mota de Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for
     treated this issue in detail did not introduce any new
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Joaquim Calvo
     evidence such as could give rise to a reasonable belief         Basaran , 34 Boulevard Ernest Feltgen, 1515 Luxembourg .
     that a new investigation would lead to a different
     conclusion by the Council, and particularly with
     respect to the critically important Community interest          The applicant claims that the Court should :
     criterion ;
                                                                     — uphold the application and accordingly declare null
 — infringed essential procedural requirements, in                        and void Decision C(97 ) 2130 final of 9 July 1997,
     particular those laid down in Article 5 (4 ) of the Basic
     Regulation which provides that an anti-dumping
     investigation can be initiated by the Commission only            — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 12 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 370/ 11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and Fran<;oise Parmentier, of
                                                                        the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais, SA, a
                                                                        Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari,
limited liability company governed by Portuguese law,                   30 Rue de Cessange.
whose capital is exclusively public, challenges the decision
whereby the Commission describes as aid the measures
taken in its favour, considers such aid incompatible with               The applicants claim that the Court should :
Article 92 of the EC Treaty and directs the Portuguese
State to abolish, within two weeks from notifications, the
aforementioned aid and to recover, within two months                    — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
from notifications, the said aid .                                           for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                             respect of household grants,
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                        — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
those relied on in T-204/97 EPAC v. Commission ('). The
applicant alleges infringement of Articles 190 and 92 of                     wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
the EC Treaty as well as the existence, in the present case ,                rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
of arbitrary discrimination between public and private                       deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
undertakings, that it is legally impossible for the
Portuguese State to adopt the measures imposed by the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs.
contested decision and breach of the principles of
proportionality and of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(') Not yet published in the Official Journal .
                                                                        The applicants, officials of the Commission whose spouses
                                                                        receive a household grant, state that up until July 1996
                                                                        the defendant deducted, pursuant to Article 67 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                        Staff Regulations for officials, the household grant
                                                                        received by their spouses from the family allowances to
                                                                        which they were entitled . In July 19 96 , in consequence of
Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Patrick Fischbach                  the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
and others against the Commission of the European                       11 June 1996 in Case T-147/95 Pavan v. Parliament, the
                           Communities                                  Commission published a staff notice inviting the persons
                                                                        concerned to apply to the administration for re-assessment
                        ( Case T-271/97)                                of their situation . Upon the applicants so doing, the
                          ( 97/C 370/23 )                               administration decided that, with effect from 1 July 1996,
                                                                        it would no longer deduct that grant from the household
                (Language of the case: French)                          allowance paid to the applicants. The applicants there
                                                                        upon requested retroactive reimbursement of all of the
                                                                        sums deducted together with default interest . Those
An action against the Commission of the European                        requests were rejected by the defendant.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 October
1997 by Patrick Fischbach , residing at Uebersyren                      The pleas in law and main arguments advanced by the
( Luxembourg ), Alain Gengler, residing at Bettembourg                  applicants against those rejection decisions are the same as
( Luxembourg), Joseph Koener, residing at Olm                           those in Case T-181 /97 (').
( Luxembourg ), Gaby Pavant-Welter, residing at Dalheim
( Luxembourg), Marie-Anne Prommenschenkel-Po.orters,                    (') Case T-181 /97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice, OJ
residing in Luxembourg, and Josepha Wonner, residing in                     C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 35 .