CELEX: C2000/273/23
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-177/00: Action brought on 30 June 2000 by Koninklĳke Philips Electronics N.V. against the Council of the European Union.

23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 273/13
dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     Action brought on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, v                        Electronics N.V. against the Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                                         Union.
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for suspension
of operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000
on withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for                                          (Case T-177/00)
human use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                          (2000/C 273/23)
28 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000 on                               (Language of the case: English)
      withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
      use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) is suspended
      with regard to the applicant.                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Communities on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips Elec-
                                                                           tronics N.V., represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Filip
                                                                           Ragolle of Stanbrook-Hooper, Brussels.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC, the
                                                                                 Council’s decision to reject the Commission proposal for
                                                                                 a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     duty on imports of certain parts of television camera
                              INSTANCE                                           systems originating in Japan;
                                                                           —     order, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) EC, the
                          of 18 May 2000
                                                                                 Council to make good any damage caused to the applicant
                                                                                 by its unlawful rejection of the Commission’s proposal
in Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the                          for a Regulation or, alternatively, its failure to impose
                     European Communities                                        adequate protective measures before the expiry of the
                                                                                 15 month deadline;
     (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — None)                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
                                                                                 Council.
                          (2000/C 273/22)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           The present application arises out of the fact that the Council
In Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                    did not adopt the Commission’s proposal of 7 April 2000 for
Commission of the European Communities, in service at the                  a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, residing at Besozzo (Italy),           on imports of certain parts of television camera systems
represented by V. Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar, of Via Speroni 14,          originating in Japan (COM(2000) 195 final). According to the
Varese, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   applicant, the Council’s failure to achieve a simple majority in
G. Valsesia) — application for interim measures in the form of             support of the Commission’s proposal combined with the
suspension of operation of the decision removing him from                  expiry of the 15-month time limit of Article 6(9) of the Basic
his post, adopted by the Commission on 30 September 1999                   Regulation (1) amounts to a definitive negative decision, which
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order               it challenges in the present case.
on 18 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           The applicant’s case for annulment falls basically into two
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                   alternative parts. On the one hand, the applicant argues that,
                                                                           at the end of the 15-month time limit, the Council ultimately
2.    The costs are reserved.                                              had no power to reject the Commission’s proposal, since it
                                                                           had previously failed to involve itself in the fact finding and
                                                                           procedural aspects of the case. Under the current Basic
                                                                           Regulation, the Council has limited itself to the possibility of
                                                                           amending some of the modalities of the proposal, while
 ---pagebreak--- C 273/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.9.2000
remaining within the limits of the findings of fact made by the           —     annul the Commission’s decision to appoint another
Commission. On the other hand, in the assumption that the                       person to fill that post;
Council did have power to reject the proposal, such rejection
was illegal in the present case, because it constituted
                                                                          —     in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision
                                                                                of the appointing authority rejecting the pre-litigation
—     a wilful disregard or manifest error of appreciation of the               claim made by the applicant;
      facts found by the Commission
—     a denial of procedural rights and legitimate expectations           —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
      of the complainants                                                       decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
                                                                                the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
—     a failure to state adequate reasons as required by
                                                                                information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
      Article 253 EC
                                                                                applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                                worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
Finally, the applicant claims that the Council is liable under                  future career;
Article 288(2) EC because its failure to adopt protective
measures amounts to unlawful conduct which caused and
continues to cause damage to the applicant.                               —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
                                                                                decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                                applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                    candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members                lost an opportunity of promotion;
    of the European Community, OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1, as last amended
    by Council Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ
    L 128, p. 18.                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                          Cases T-135/00, T-136/00 and T-164/00.
Action brought on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-181/00)
                         (2000/C 273/24)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
                                                                                N.V. against the Council of the European Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello,                                            (Case T-183/00)
residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre
Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 273/25)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting his application                              (Language of the case: French)
      for post COM/090/99 IV/C/1 as head of unit with
      responsibility for directing and coordinating the work of
      the ‘Telecommunications and Postal Services’ unit within            An action against the Council of the European Union was
      the Information, Communications and Multimedia Direc-               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      torate, and annul all preparatory acts adopted in antici-           Communities on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
      pation of that decision which may themselves prove to               N.V., established at Stabroek (Belgium), represented by André
      be irregular;                                                       Delvaux, of the Brussels Bar.