CELEX: C1996/318/23
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 July 1996 by Intertronic-F. Cornelis GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-117/96)

26 . 10 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 318/ 11
The applicant asks that the second paragraph of Article 215             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
of the EC Treaty be applied on the basis of the no-fault
liability to which the functioning of the institutions gave rise        The applicant, an undertaking incorporated under German
and, in the alternative, on the basis of the Community                  law which wishes to advertise by fax, contests the
authorities' liability for fault.                                       Commission 's refusal to adopt a position on its complaint
                                                                        against the Federal Republic of Germany following the
In the context of no-fault liability, it relies on the concept of       judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of
public liability for breach of the principle of equality in             Justice ) of 25 October 1 995 , which restricted advertising by
bearing public burdens, claiming that application of the                fax solely to cases in which the recipient has expressly or by
system of an ' area without frontiers' instituted by the Single         implication consented to the receipt of such
Act caused to it, as an authorized customs agent, exceptional           communications .
special and direct damage . The consequence of the abolition
of the authorized customs agent's activities was a massive              That refusal is incompatible both with the Community
reduction in the turnover of certain businesses in the sector           competition rules and with the principles governing the
and, much more seriously, the disappearance of some of                  setting-up and functioning of the internal market. In
them .                                                                  particular, the effect of the abovementioned judgment of the
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof has been to strengthen the market
As regards liability for the fault of the Community's agents,           position of large undertakings in the advertising industry
the applicant maintains that, in the context of the legislative         ( the print and broadcasting media ). In addition, that
action of the Community which caused the damage , the                   judgment constitutes an obstacle to the creation of a
Community authorities disregarded the vested rights of                  homogeneous market .
customs agents and the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations .
Referring to the nature of the damage , the applicant states
that as a result of the establishment of the European Area , in
its activities as a forwarding agent which it had pursued for a         Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Thai Bicycle Industry
considerable length of time, it abruptly suffered two-fold                   Co . Ltd against the Council of the European Union
damage in the form of: ( a ) the practically total and definitive                               ( Case T-l 18/96 )
loss of its business as a customs agent, and ( b ) the                                            ( 96/C 318/24 )
exceptional costs of running its business when it was
 required to face up to the unexpectedness of events, above                             (Language of the case: English)
 all in the social area , but also in the technical and
 administrative areas .
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 26 July 1996 by Thai Bicycle Industry Co .
                                                                         Ltd , represented by Jean-Frangois Bellis and Richard Luff,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
 Action brought on 29 July 1996 by Intertronic-F. Cornells               of A. F. Brausch, 8 rue Zithe .
 GmbH against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                         ( Case T- 11 7/96 )
                                                                         — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 648/96 of 28 March
                           ( 96/C 318/23 )
                                                                              1996 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
                                                                              imports of bicycles originating in, inter alia, Thailand in
                 (Language of the case: German)                               so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on
                                                                              bicycles manufactured by the applicant,
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                            and
 Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1996 by
 Intertronic-F . Cornelis GmbH, Emden ( Federal Republic of              — order      the   Council    to  bear   the   costs   of  these
 Germany ), represented by Professor Schumacher, Bremen                       proceedings .
 ( Germany ), and Wilhelm Wiltfang, Rechtsanwalt,
 Krummhorn ( Germany ).                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant, a limited company established under the laws
                                                                         of Thailand, specializing in the production of bicycles and
 — declare that the defendant has failed, contrary to the EC              bicycle and motorcycle parts , challenges the imposition of
     Treaty, to put a stop to the implementation by the                   anti-dumping duties on its exports to the European
     enforcement authorities of the Federal Republic of                   Community .
     Germany, and by the legally established associations for
     the promotion of commercial interests , of the ban on                The applicant submits that the institutions have committed
     advertising by fax, constituting a breach of the                     two manifest errors in determining its dumping margin :
     prohibition of restraints of trade ;
                                                                          The applicant's dumping margin has been artificially
  — order the defendant to pay the costs .                                inflated, contrary to Article 2 ( 3 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of Council