CELEX: C2001/118/110
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-29/01: Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente Martín against the Commission of the European Communities

C 118/40              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
                                                                         Martı́n against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                       munities
                      of 30 January 2001
                                                                                                    (Case T-29/01)
in Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste v Commission of                                               (2001/C 118/110)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000
— Registration of a protected geographical indication —
‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Measure of general                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                application — Inadmissibility)                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
                                                                         Martı́n, residing in Madrid, represented by Oscar González
                        (2001/C 118/109)                                 Correas, lawyer.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 8 November 2000
                                                                               (Ref. 2974);
In Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste, established at Morlaas              —     declare that the applicant is entitled to the full installation
(France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, lawyer with a right of                  allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to
audience before the Conseil d’État and the Cour de Cassation,                 the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v Commission of the European                       Regulations, as laid down in Article 71 of those Regu-
Communities (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and X. Lewis) —                    lations;
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the Annex to                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in
the Register of protected designations of origin and protected
geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indi-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
and foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 154, p. 5), as regards registration as
a protected geographical indication of the name ‘Canard à foie           The applicant in the present dispute is a former Commission
gras du Sud-Ouest’ — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                  official who is disputing the appointing authority’s decision to
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-              refuse him both an installation allowance for settling in
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an           Belgium, on the ground that he was reinstated in service
order on 30 January 2001, the operative part of which is as              following the withdrawal of his previous status of permanent
follows:                                                                 invalidity, and a resettlement allowance for Spain after his
                                                                         service terminated. The applicant claims that he is entitled
                                                                         to those allowances in accordance with the provisions of
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       Article 5(1), the first paragraph of Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(a)
                                                                         and (b) and Article 9(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                         Regulations.
2.   The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs of
     the Commission.
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant submits:
                                                                         —     that a finding of invalidity is a matter governed by the
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                     rules and depends not on the individual but on an
                                                                               objective situation;
                                                                         —     that, according to settled case-law, an established official
                                                                               is entitled to the disputed allowances even when the place
                                                                               in which he has settled has not changed;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/41
—     that, in any event, a period of three and a half years            —     Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 3(8) of the basic dumping
      elapsed between 1 December 1995, the date on which he                   regulation in determining that the Community industry
      was first found to be suffering from invalidity, and his                has suffered material injury,
      reinstatement in service on 16 June 1999, a fairly long
      period of time during which the applicant’s home in               —     Article 3(6) of the basic dumping regulation in determin-
      Belgium had to be kept up and maintained in order to be                 ing that imports from the targeted countries caused
      ready for use on his return to Belgium. Further, the                    material injury to the Community industry, and
      applicant incurred substantial costs prior to moving to
      Belgium.                                                          —     Articles 20(4), 20(5) and 6(9) of the basic dumping
                                                                              regulation, Article 253 EC as well as the applicant’s right
                                                                              to a fair hearing.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-35/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against
                                                                            the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                        (2001/C 118/111)
                                                                                                   (Case T-36/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 118/112)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka                                        (Language of the case: English)
Electronic Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under Chinese
Law, represented by Paul Waer, of the Brussels Bar.                     An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel,
                                                                        established under the laws of Belgium, represented by Susanne
                                                                        Möbus of Müller-Boré & Parnter, Munich (Germany).
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000
      of 27 November 2000 in so far as it imposes an anti-
      dumping duty on Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd.,             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      and;
                                                                        —     annul or alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of
                                                                              30 November 2000 (case R 0137/2000-1);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a company incorporated
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
under Chinese Law, whose object is to manufacture high
technology products. It claims that, by imposing anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain retail electronic weighing scales          Trade mark concerned:          A design applied to a surface
manufactured and exported by the applicant, the defendant                                              of the goods in accordance with
has infringed various provisions of the Council Regulation                                             Article 63(1), of the regulation on
No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from                                                    the Community trade mark (Case
countries not members of the European Communities (1) (the                                             R 0137/2000-1).
basic dumping regulation). It is submitted that the Council has
infringed:                                                              Product or service:            Classes 11, 19 and 21.
—     Article 2(7)c of the basic dumping regulation in denying          Challenged        decision     Refusal of registration by the
      that the applicant could be granted market economy                before the Board of            Examiner.
      status,                                                           Appeal: