CELEX: C2000/335/86
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Cases T-242/00, T-243/00, T-257/00, T-258/00, T-259/00, T-265/00 and T-267/00: Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia Lavoratori Portuali s.c.a r.l. and Others against Commission of the European Communities

25.11.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 335/45
Furthermore, the Executive Board of the ECB was not com-                The applicant submits that the two conditions laid down
petent to adopt Articles 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.4.7 of the Staff            in Article 13 are satisfied, namely the existence of special
Rules. The same is true of the refusal of the application to            circumstances and the absence of any obvious negligence or
insert in the Conditions of Employment, by decision of the              deception. It claims that it was the Japanese producer who
Governing Council of the ECB, provisions on collective                  failed properly to execute the undertaking measure. The
agreements. The refusal of the applicants’ requests in that             applicant exercised all due care and was an innocent victim of
respect could not issue from the Vice-President of the ECB.             fraud.
The applicants submit, finally, that the decision does not              Moreover, the Commission failed to comply with its obligation
contain a sufficient statement of reasons. It merely states that        effectively to monitor the undertaking measures. It is inequi-
the defendant finds the applicants’ proposal inappropriate.             table to require the applicant to bear a loss that it would not
There is no explanation as to the considerations on which the           otherwise have incurred had the Commission and the Japanese
defendant bases that statement.                                         producers properly carried out their obligations as defined in
                                                                        the price-undertaking measures.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/90 of 23 July 1990 imposing
                                                                            a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain types of
                                                                            electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs (dynamic random
                                                                            access memories) originating in Japan and collecting definitively
                                                                            the provisional duty, OJ 1990 L 193, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by SCI UK Limited                          repayment or remission of import or export duties, OJ 1979
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        L 175, p. 1.
                        (Case T-239/00)
                        (2000/C 335/85)
                                                                        Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
                  (Language of the case: English)                       Lavoratori Portuali s.c.a r.l. and Others against Com-
                                                                                    mission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               (Cases T-242/00, T-243/00, T-257/00, T-258/00, T-259/00,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                   T-265/00 and T-267/00)
European Communities on 28 August 2000 by SCI UK Limited
(Irvine, United Kingdom), represented by Mr. Leslie Allen, of                                     (2000/C 335/86)
Ernst & Young, London.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the Commission decision of 29 June 2000                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      (C(2000) 1684 final) addressed to the United Kingdom              European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
      of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning an               Lavoratori Portuali San Marco Venezia a r.l. and Others,
      application for the repayment of import duty.                     represented by Andrea Bortoluzzi and Chiara Montagner, of
                                                                        the Venice Bar.
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant imported computer components, including                   —     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
dynamic random access memories (‘DRAMS’) originating in                       2000/394/EEC;
Japan. Pursuant to Council Regulation No 2112/90 (1), those             —     in the alternative, annul Article 5 of the decision
imports were subject to a 60 % anti-dumping duty, which
was, however, not levied upon the presentation of price-                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
undertaking documents issued by the Japanese producers.
Subsequent to a criminal investigation it appeared that some
certificates issued to the applicant were invalid for various           Pleas in law and main arguments
reasons and had been fraudulently used. HM Customs & Excise
therefore issued to the applicant post clearance demands in             The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
the amount of anti-dumping duty unpaid. Subsequently, the               Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
British authorities submitted an application to the Commission          Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
for a decision as to whether the repayment of import
duties was justified on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation           (1) not yet published.
No 1430/79 (2). That application was rejected by the contested
decision.