CELEX: C1997/318/45
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 July 1997 by Agnès Hubert against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-212/97)

18 . 10 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/23
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by Agnes Hubert against               Action brought on 18 July 1997 by Eurocoton and others
        the Commission of the European Communities                             against the Council of the European Union
                       ( Case T-212/97)                                                     ( Case T-213/97)
                         ( 97/C 318/45 )                                                      ( 97/C 318/46 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 1997                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
by Agnes Hubert, resident in Brussels, represented by                Communities on 18 July 1997 by Eurocoton, a Belgian
Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address for              association de fait representing the Community producers
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,               of unbleached cotton fabrics, and 13 Community
21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                     producers of those fabrics, represented by Clive Stanbrook
                                                                     QC and Professor Alan Dashwood, Barristers of the Inner
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Temple, London, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the offices of Arsene Kronshagen, Avocat,
— annul the decision of the Director-General of DG V                 12, Boulevard de la Foire .
     definitively adopting her staff report for the period
     1993 to 1995 , notified to her on 16 April 1997,
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     — declare void the Council's decision to reject the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Commission's proposal for a Regulation 1 . imposing
                                                                          definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
In support of her action for annulment, the applicant                     unbleached cotton fabric from India, Indonesia,
contends primarily that the contested report is vitiated by               Pakistan, Turkey, China and Egypt and 2 . collecting
infringements of formal and procedural requirements,                      the provisional duties imposed by Regulation ( EC )
namely:                                                                   No 2208/96 of 18 November 1996,
— breach of the principles of good administration and of
     legal certainty inasmuch as the report was in fact              — order that the Council make good any damage caused
     drawn up after the date which appears on it,                         to the applicants by its unlawful rejection of the
                                                                          Commission's proposal,
— failure to consult her previous immediate superior in
     due time and in accordance with the procedure laid                   and
     down,
— infringement of the obligation to give reasons for an              — order the Council to pay the costs.
     adverse change in the analytical assessment, laid down
     by the second paragraph of Article 5 of the General
     Provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Regulations of 27 July 1979,
                                                                     The Council had no power ultimately to reject the
— breach of the requirement that the report is to relate             Commission's proposal, and in so doing it infringed
     exclusively to the reference period, laid down by the           Articles 6 ( 9 ) and 9 (4 ) of Council Regulation ( EC)
     first paragraph of Article 5 of the said general                No 384/96 ( OJ L 56, 6 . 3 . 1996, p. 1 ). Since the adoption
     provisions.                                                     of mandatory time limits for the conclusion of anti­
                                                                     dumping investigations the Council must adopt a proposal
She relies in the alternative on illegalities regarding the          from the Commission before the expiry of the 15-month
content of the report:                                               deadline. All that the Council could do was require that
                                                                     the proposal be amended as to its modalities, while
— infringement of the obligation to make the analytical              remaining within the limits of the findings of fact made by
                                                                     the Commission .
     assessment independently from the general assessment
     and on the basis of the applicable assessment
     definitions,
                                                                     In the alternative, if ( which is not admitted ) the Council
                                                                     did have the power to reject the Commission's proposal
— manifest errors of fact,                                           outright, it did so in this case in wilful disregard of the
                                                                     facts found by the Commission or on the basis of a
— misuse of powers.                                                  manifest error in its assessment of those facts . Moreover,
                                                                     its rejection amounted to a denial of the procedural rights
                                                                     and legitimate expectations of the applicants. Last of all,