CELEX: C1995/189/37
Language: en
Date: 1995-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 May 1995 by Pierre Jaminon against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-111/95)

No C 189/18         ΓΕΝ                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 7. 95
Action brought on 3 May 1995 by Pierre Jaminon against               No 1639/91 , and that that condition was properly satisfied
the Council of the European Union and the Commission of              in this case, since the provisional specific reference allocated
                 the European Communities                            to him has been turned into a definitive reference by an order
                       ( Case T-111/95 )                             of the Prefect of the Ardennes of 1 August 1991 .
                         ( 95/C 189/37)                              Furthermore, he points out that the decision at issue in the
                                                                     dispute is the result of a mistaken assessment of the facts of
               (Language of the case: French)                        the matter by the competent authority.
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 May 1995 by Pierre Jaminon, resident at
Beaulieu ( France ), represented by Bernard Peignot and              Action brought on 12 May 1995 by European Fertilizer
Denis Garreau, avocats to the Council of State and Court of          Manufacturers Association against the Council of the
Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                   European Union
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
                                                                                              ( Case T-121/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                    ( 95/C 189/38 )
— order the Council of the European Union and the                                     (Language of the case: English)
    Commission of the European Communities, each as far
    as it is concerned, acting respectively through its duly
    appointed representatives, jointly and severally to              An action against the Council of the European Union was
    compensate Mr Jaminon for the damage suffered by him             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    as a result of the application of Council Regulation             Communities on 12 May 1995 by the European Fertilizer
    ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 3 March 1984, as amended , in as            Manufacturers Association, represented by M. Dominique
    much as that Regulation did not provide for the                  Voillemot and M. Hubert de Broca, with an address for
    allocation of a reference quantity to producers who, in          service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
    performance of an undertaking given pursuant to                  Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, BP 1107, L-1011 Luxembourg.
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977,
    had not delivered milk during the reference year used by         The applicant claims that the Court should :
    France ,
                                                                     — annul Article 1 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 477/95
— consequently order payment to Mr Jaminon of the sum                      amending the definitive anti-dumping measures
    of FF 173 232,36 by way of compensation, together                      applying to imports into the Community of urea
    with interest thereon at the rate of 8 % to run from the               originating in the former USSR and terminating the
    date of the offer made to the applicant on 29 June 1994                anti-dumping measures applying to imports into the
    and subsequently withdrawn, or, at least, from the date                Community of urea originating in the former
    of the judgment to be given,                                           Czechoslovakia (*),
— order the defendants to pay all the costs .                        — order that such anti-dumping duty imposed by that
                                                                           provision be maintained until the competent institutions
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        adopt more stringent measures needed to comply with
The applicant, a farmer who had given an undertaking not                   the hereby requested judgment, and
to market milk pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77,
                                                                    — order the Council to pay the costs .
was allocated a provisional specific quantity and was
offered compensation under Regulation ( EEC ) No 21 87/93 ,
challenges the decision of the Office National                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Interprofessionnel du Lait ( National Milk Trades Board,
Onilait ) refusing to pay him that compensation on the              The applicant submits that Article 1 of the contested
ground that his specific reference quantity cannot be                Regulation is void for the following reasons:
regarded as definitive, since he has never personally resumed
milk production, contrary to Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation           ( a ) With regard to the calculation of normal value: the
( EEC ) No 857/84 . In that connection, the applicant points                choice of the Slovak Republic as the reference country
out that in carrying on his milk-producing operations he                    infringes Article 2 ( 5 ) of the Council Regulation ( EEC )
uses cows belonging to him and milking machinery                            No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against
belonging to a neighbouring producer, under a scheme of                     dumped or subsidized imports from countries not
mutual aid between them .                                                   members of the European Economic Community.
The applicant considers that the decision at issue is contrary       ( b ) With regard to the comparison between normal value
to the applicable Community legislation inasmuch as                         and export price: by comparing normal value and
compensation is to be paid as soon as the person concerned                  export price at two obviously different stages, i.e. at the
has been allocated a definitive specific reference quantity as              ex-works level and at the ex-frontier level respectively,
provided by either Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 or ( EEC )                  the defendant :