CELEX: C1995/351/27
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Hitachi Ltd, Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co., Sanyo Electric Co., Sharp Corporation and Toshiba Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-192/95)

30 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 351 / 13
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          She further pleads breach of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                      welfare of officials and of the principles of good
— annul the decision of 14 December 1994 adopted by the               management and sound administration, by reason of what
    Commission , as the appointing authority, refusing to             she considers to have been the uncooperative attitude and
    accede to the applicant's request of 8 October 1986 for           negative, obstructive approach shown by the appointing
    recognition of an occupational disease, and, in so far as         authority throughout its handling of the matter .
    may be necessary, the implicit decision rejecting the
    applicant's complaint,                                            She also considers that the defendant provided an erroneous
                                                                      statement of reasons , inasmuch as the contested decision is
— award the applicant default interest at the annual rate of          based on contradictory arguments .
     8 % on the sum due to her pursuant to Article 73 of the
    Staff Regulations,                                                Lastly, the applicant observes that, for numerous reasons
                                                                      relating to the ill will shown by the Commission in this
— award the applicant ECU 1 , calculated on a provisional             matter, it is guilty of a misuse of powers , since it deviated
     basis, by way of compensation for the non-material               from its task and from its duty to promote the common
    damage suffered by her,                                           interest .
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant , the widow of a Community official who
worked for 26 years in the nuclear field, states that her
husband died in 1986 as a result of an infection caused by            Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Hitachi Ltd,
the hepatitis B virus which developed into chronic active             Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
hepatitis . She maintains that the infection from which her           Corporation , NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.,
husband suffered only rarely develops into a chronic                  Sanyo Electric Co., Sharp Corporation and Toshiba
complaint resulting in death and observes that, according to          Corporation against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
the medical advice taken at the time , her husband 's lack of
immunity against the hepatitis B virus could have originated                                  ( Case T- 192/95 )
from external factors, of which the only one meriting serious                                   ( 95 /C 351 /27 )
consideration was his exposure to radiation in the course of
his career with the nuclear energy services of the
Community . The applicant consequently submitted a                                    (Language of the case: English)
request on 8 October 1986 for the recognition of her
husband 's illness as an occupational disease . Following a
lengthy and complex procedure, and on the basis of two                An action against the Commission of the European
reports by the medical committee provided for in Article 23           Communities was brought before the Court of First
of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European            Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
Communities against the risk of accident and of                       by Hitachi Ltd, Matsushita Electronics Corporation,
occupational disease ('the Rules '), the appointing authority         Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki
rejected the applicant's request by decision of 14 December           Electric Industry Co ., Sanyo F^lectric Co ., Sharp
 1994 .                                                               Corporation and Toshiba Corporation , represented by Ivo
                                                                      Van Bael , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant considers that the appointing authority acted           Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
unlawfully in a number of respects in its handling of her
request for recognition of an occupational disease .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
She maintains, first of all, that the contested decision
disregards Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials and       — annul the Commission decision to initiate an interim
Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Rules . She considers that it has been             review contained in notice 95/C 181 /04 of 15 July 1995
established , first, that her husband was exposed to ionizing             in so far as it concerns the undertakings accepted by
radiation and that the development of viral hepatitis into a              Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 165/90 in respect of
chronic condition may be caused by exposure to that type of               imports of certain types of electronic microcircuits
radiation and , second , that the illness from which her                  known as DRAMs originating in Japan,
husband died is included in the European list of
 occupational diseases ; since the criteria of Article 3(1 ) of the   — declare that the applicants are no longer subject to any
 Rules were fulfilled, the defendant should have applied                  anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of DRAMs
 Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials .                       originating in Japan and are therefore not to be regarded
                                                                           as interested parties for the purpose of the interim review
 The applicant also contends that the procedure leading to                 of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports
 the adoption of the contested decision was irregular in                   into the EU of DRAMs originating in Japan initiated by
 several respects .                                                       Notice 95/C 181 /04 , and
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 / 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred within               Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Sveriges Betodlares
    the framework of the present application, including               Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henriksson against the
    those incurred by the applicants .                                        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-197/95 )
                                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /28 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                       (Language of the case: English)
The applicants, seven public companies established under              An action against the Commission of the European
the laws of Japan, manufacturers of, inter alia, certain types        Communities was brought before the Court of First
of electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs, challenge the             Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
decision of the Commission to initiate an interim review of           by Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of DRAMs                 Henriksson, represented by Dr Otfried Lieberknecht, Dr
originating in Japan, in so far as it concerns the applicants '       Michael Schiitte and Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff with an
undertakings accepted by Commission Regulation ( EEC )                address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr
No 165/90 , imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on               Axel Bonn, Avenue Guillaume 62 .
imports of this kind of products .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
By Regulation ( EEC ) No 2112/90, the Council imposed a               — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 in so far as that
definitive anti-dumping duty of 60 % on imports of DRAMs                  Regulation refuses to fix, for the 1994/95 marketing
originating in Japan . However, DRAMs produced and                        year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable
exported to the Community by companies which offered the                  to the minimum sugar-beet prices also with regard to
aforementioned undertakings were exempted from this                       Sweden, for the period from 1 January to 30 June
definitive duty . The contested decision has been taken                   1 995 ,
following a request for a review, under Articles 14 and 15 of
                                                                      — order the Commission to bear the costs of these
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , by the European
Electronic Component Manufacturers' Association.                          proceedings .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants submit that the decision to initiate the
disputed review constitutes an act capable of review under            The applicants request the annulment of Commission
Article 173 of the EEC Treaty . As provided for in                    Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 , concerning the fixing of the
Article 15 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , the decision      specific agricultural conversion rate relating to the sugar
to initiate an expiry review has the effect of maintaining in         market for the sugar marketing year 1994/95 in so far as it
force the anti-dumping measure concerned which would                  explicitly denies the determination of a specific agricultural
otherwise have expired after five years . The legal effect of         conversion rate for Swedish kronor, which would be
the decision to initiate the disputed review is, therefore, the       applicable to Sweden for the part of the sugar marketing
continued application of an anti-dumping measure on the               year 1994/95 from the date of accession to 30 Tune
                                                                      1995 .
applicants .
                                                                      The applicants state that the failure by the Commission to
                                                                      determine such a specific agricultural conversion rate has
The applicants further submit that the contested decision is          not been unintentional . Rather, the Regulation clearly
manifestly unlawful in so far as it concerns anti-dumping             reasons that the Commission ( incorrectly ) considers that no
measures which are clearly incapable of being the subject of          specific agricultural conversion rate need be determined
a valid interim review proceeding because they expired prior          with regard to the three new Member States, i.e. Finland,
to the initiation of the interim review concerned . As a              Sweden and Austria .
question of law, Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EC )
No 3283/94 provides for a maximum five-year period of                 The applicants maintain that the failure to determine a
validity for all anti-dumping measures unless it is                   specific agricultural conversion rate for Swedish kronor is
determined in an expiry review initiated prior to the expiry          based upon a misconception of the limited scope of the
of the five-year period and that the expiry would be likely to        transitional measures applicable to the sugar market in
lead to a continuation of dumping and injury . Accordingly,           Sweden during the 1994/95 sugar marketing year, infringes
the decision to initiate the disputed review infringes an             Article 1 ( 3 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1713/93
essential procedural requirement in so far as it concerns             and directly affects their rights in that it deprives them,
measures which had already expired .                                  without any legal basis, of their well-founded rights and
                                                                      expectations to participate in one of the fundamental
                                                                      elements of the sugar market regulation: the price
                                                                      Regulation.