CELEX: C2002/003/65
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-255/01: Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

5.1.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 3/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               In support of his claim, he relies on the following pleas:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 16 August
      2001 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain              —    the vacancy notice was drawn up in vague terms,
      documents concerning a proceeding pursuant to                            inasmuch as it does not make it possible to discern with
      Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/37.919) relating                   any certainty the conditions for taking part in the
      to bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro                    appointment procedure.
      zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank AG) — on the wider
      application of access to files under Article 8 of Com-              —    the candidate who was finally appointed does not meet,
      mission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001                        according to his curriculum vitae published on the
      on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain                 internet, the minimum requirements for selection and for
      competition proceedings;                                                 being considered a suitable candidate.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —    the defendant, according to its own interpretation of the
                                                                               rules of the Court adopted by Decision No 18/97,
                                                                               refused him access to certain document regarding the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                appointment procedure.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in T-216/01 Reisebank AG v Commission.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou
                                                                          Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro
                                                                          Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the
 against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                                                 European Union
                        (Case T-254/01)
                                                                                                  (Case T-255/01)
                         (2002/C 3/64)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 3/65)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe
Di Pietro, represented by Giovanni Monforte, lawyer.                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon
                                                                          Group Co., Ltd., represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and
—     annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of the                  Mr Filip Ragolle of Stanbrook Hooper, Brussels (Belgium).
      European Communities of 22 February 2001 whereby it
      decided to ‘appoint’ Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary
      General of the Court;
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the
      applicant and to make good the damage suffered by him.              —    annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July
                                                                               2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
                                                                               collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
                                                                               imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of
                                                                               China in so far as it applies to the applicants;
The applicant opposes the appointment of a Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors.                                                 —    order the Council to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants are both Chinese producers of electronic
compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) and export those lamps to             —     amend the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the
the European Community.                                                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001 concerning appeal
                                                                              No R 789/1999-2 so that it states that there are no
On 17 May 2000, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping                      grounds under Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation on the
proceeding concerning imports of CFL-i originating in China,                  Community trade mark for refusing to register the
after the lodging by the European Lighting Companies Feder-                   Community trade mark AIR MARITIME under appli-
ation of a complaint. During the anti-dumping investigation.                  cation No 81.331;
Mexico was used, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic
Regulation, as the analogue market economy country for the
purposes of determining the normal value of exports from
China.                                                                  —     in the alternative, annul the decision of the second Board
                                                                              of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001
                                                                              concerning appeal No R 789/1999-2 and order the Office
The applicants co-operated during the investigation and were
                                                                              for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to continue the
granted individual treatment The dumping margins were
                                                                              registration procedure relating to the Community trade
therefore determined using the normal value of the export
                                                                              mark AIR MARITIME under registration No 81.331
prices of Philips Mexicana , a subsidiary of one of the primary
                                                                              without regard to the opposing trade mark, i.e. the
complainants, as well as the normal value of the applicants’
                                                                              German Trade Mark Wz 1.186.278 ‘air marin’, and
export prices.
In support of their claims, the applicants submit that, by              —     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
adopting the Commission’s findings, the Council infringed the
basic anti-dumping Regulation, in that the Commission should
have used Article 2(7)(b) and not 2(7)(a) of that Regulation.
Alternatively, the applicants argue that the normal value
determined under Article 2(7)(a) was manifestly unreasonable
and discriminatory.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-        The applicant
Action brought on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Touristik                    munity trade mark:
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Community trade mark          The word mark ‘AIR MARITIME’
                                                                        applied for:                  for goods and services in Class 16,
                        (Case T-257/01)                                                               39 and 42 — Application
                                                                                                      No 81.331
                          (2002/C 3/66)
                                                                        Proprietor of the oppos-      Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with              ing right to a trade mark
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the         or sign:
                 application was drafted: German)
                                                                        Opposing right to trade       The German word mark ‘air mar-
                                                                        mark or sign:                 in’ for services in Class 39
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Tour-                  Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the application for
istik GmbH, Munich, represented by Hans Georg Zeiner and                sition Division:              the services ‘travel agency;
Brigitte Heamann-Dunn, lawyers, with an address for service                                           arrangement and organisation of
in Luxembourg, the other party before the Board of Appeal                                             travel; transport of persons’ in
being Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH, Bonn (Germany).                                                      Class 39