CELEX: C1995/119/51
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA, Sociedade Comercial, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-73/95)

13 . 5 . 95        [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 119/27
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Estabelecimentos              Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes
Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA, Sociedade Comercial, against the           against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                             Commission of the European Communities
                         Case T-73/95 )                                                      (Case T-76/95 )
                          95/C 119/51 )                                                        ( 95/C 119/52 )
                                                                                    (Language of the case: German)
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Communities on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes,
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                 Heinsberg-Dremmen ( Federal Republik of Germany),
 1995 by Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA,                  represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,
Sociedade Comercial, whose registered office is in Avenida          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
de Olivença, Montijo, Portugal, represented by Dr Joaquim           of Dupong & Associés, 14a , Rue des Bains .
Marques de Ascensâo, of the Lisbon Bar, whose Chambers
are in Av. Eng. Duarte Pacheco — Amoreiras, Torre 2 ,               The applicant claims that the Court should :
 1 0-S 1,1000 Lisbon, with an address for service at the Uniâo
de Bancos Portugueses SA, c/o Sr Alberto de Sousa, 12, rue          order the defendants to pay to the applicant compensation
de la Grève, 1643 Luxembourg.                                       for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the
                                                                    amount of DM 58 937,01 , together with 8% interest
                                                                    thereon from 17 December 1983 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
annul in part the Decision of the Commission relating to file       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
No 870708/P1 , notified on 28 December 1994 .                       Case T-20/94 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a Portuguese commercial company, which
had organized and conducted, on the basis of a project              Action brought on 6 March 1995 by NMB France Sàrl,
                                                                    NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd and NMB Italia Sri
submitted in 1986 , a professional training programme,
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
challenges the Commission's refusal to declare eligible for
the purposes of the European Social Fund certain                                             ( Case T-78/95 )
expenditure relating to that programme .                                                        95/C 119/53
It points out that, by Decision of 27 June 1989 , the                               (Language of the case: English)
defendant institution had already held to be ineligible part
of the amount designated for financing the programme and            An action against the Commission of the European
that that Decision was annulled by judgment of the Court of         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Justice of 7 May 1991 in Case C-304/89 .                            Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 995 by
                                                                   NMB France Sàrl, NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd
                                                                    and NMB Italia Sri, represented by Ian S. Forrester and
However, eight years after the submission of the project,          Aristotelis Kaplanidis, with an address for service in
seven years after the execution of the training programme          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
and four years after the judgment of the Court of Justice           8 Rue Goethe, 1011 Luxembourg.
annulling the Commission's Decision of 27 June 1989, the
Commission has now adopted a new Decision, even more
severe for the financial point of view, than that annulled by      The appliclants claim that the Court should:
the Court of Justice.                                               1 , annul Commission Decision 94/95 1 /EC in so far as it
                                                                         denies to the applicants partial refunds of anti-dumping
In so doing, the defendant has infringed the principle which             duties collected in 1992 on imports of ball bearings from
prohibits a reformatio in peius. Similarly, it has infringed the         Thailand, on the basis that the said anti-dumping duties
principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate           should be treated as a cost to be deducted in determining
expectation, and also the criterion of a 'reasonable                     export price, declaring Article 2 ( 8 ) ( b ) (ii ) of Regulation
period'.                                                                 (EEC ) No 2423/88 inapplicable under Article 184 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty to the extent necessary for the purpose;
                                                                   2 , take such further or other steps as justice may
                                                                         require;