You are on page 1of 2

9.9.

2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 259/25

The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of


the Research Directorate-General rejecting her application — annul the Provisional Regulation to the extent that it
for the vacant post (ref. no COM/R/7029/99) of head of imposes an anti-dumping duty of EUR 5,19 per tonne on
the Mediterranean Unit in Directorate E of that Director- Achema;
ate-General and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of the — order the Commission to pay the costs;
Research Directorate-General appointing another candi-
date to the post in question;
— take such other or further steps as justice may require.
— order the Commission to pay compensation, provision-
ally quantified in the sum of EUR 100 000, for the non-
material damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the defendant to take all the measures necessary in


order to comply with the judgment annulling the afore- Pleas in law and main arguments
said decisions, namely by appointing the applicant to the
post in question;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs. The applicant in the present case, a joint stock company
(limited liability company) established under the laws of
Lithuania, which is the sole producer of Urea and Ammonium
Pleas in law and main arguments Nitrate (UAN) in Lithuania, attacks Regulation EC
No 617/2000, imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on
The applicant maintains that she was unquestionably the imports of solution of urea and ammonium nitrate originating
person best qualified, on account of both her knowledge and in Alegeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and
her experience, to occupy the post in question, and that the accepting, on a provisional basis, an undertaking offered by an
decision to appoint another candidate was taken solely because exporting producer in Algeria (1).
that other candidate was an Italian national. She pleads, on
that basis, that the appointment procedure, as provided for in
Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of officials, was used
in order to achieve aims other than those indicated by In support of its action the applicant submits that the
Articles 1a and 7(1) and the third paragraph of Article 27 of Provisional Regulation:
the Staff Regulations and, consequently, that the contested
decisions are vitiated by a misuse of powers, that they disregard
the principle of non-discrimination and that they are based on — Is unlawful, because the normal value calculation on
manifest errors of assessment of the facts, resulting in errors which it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) of Regulation
of law. 384/96 (2), in that it is, at last in part, based on unofficial
records kept by Achema for promotional reasons and not
based on ACHEMA’s accounts prepared in compliance
with Lithuanian Law. Regulation 384/96 provides that
the Commission should calculate costs on the basis of
records kept by the party under investigation.

Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Achema against the


Commission of the European Communities — Is unlawful in that the normal value calculation on which
it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) (b) of Regulation
384/96, in so far as the challenged Regulation fails ti give
(Case T-155/00) any consideration to adopting The Applicant’s used cost
allocation methods.
(2000/C 259/46)

— Contains manifest errors of appreciation of the facts, in


(Language of the case: English) as much as it draws selectively from two distinct sets of
accounts, one of which should not have been used at all,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- in an inconsistent and illogical manner, and as a result of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the these selective drawings, the normal value has been
European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Achema, represent- determined in an inappropriate and unreasonable man-
ed by Alastair Sutton and James Killick of White & Case, ner. Moreover, one of the two sets of accounts should
Brussels. have not relate to the investigation period.
C 259/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9.9.2000

— Is contrary to Article 253 EC. (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Found a dumping margin of 7,6 % and imposed anti-


dumping duties of EUR 5,19 per tonne on the Applicant. Pleas in law and main arguments
Had the above breaches of Community law not been
made, only the minimis dumping would have been found The pleas in law and principal arguments are the same as in
and no duties should have been imposed. Case T-110/00 (2).

(1) OJ L 56 of 1.3.2000, p. 39.


(1) OJEC L 75, of 24.3.2000, p. 3.
(2) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 30.
(2) Council Regulation EC No 384/96, of 22 December 1996, on
protection against dumping imports from countries not members
of the European Community (OJEC L 56, of 6.3.1996, p. 1).

Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel


GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV against (Case T-168/00)


the Commission of the European Communities
(2000/C 259/48)
(Case T-159/00)

(Language of the case: German)


(2000/C 259/47)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
(Language of the case: Dutch) Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel GmbH, of Düsseldorf
(Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Johann-Chris-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
toph Gaedertz, Rechtsanwalt, of Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Bockenheimer Landstraße 98-100, Frankfurt (Federal Republic
European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV,
of Germany).
represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of The applicant claims that the Court should:
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
— amend Decision R 263/1999-3 of the Third Board of
Appeal, dated 13 April 2000, and order registration of
The applicant claims that the Court should: the mark ‘Tönnchen’ as a Community trade mark in
accordance with the annexed illustration.
(1) declare the action brought by Suproco admissible;

(2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000 Pleas in law and main arguments
introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products The trade mark con- ‘Tönnchen’ — application
with EC/OCT cumulation of origin; cerned: No 624189

Goods or service con- Class 30 goods (mustard)


(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
cerned:
by Suproco as a result of the safeguard measure and that
the parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent Decision contested Refusal of registration by the
of the damage suffered by Suproco, and order that, if no before the Board of examiner
such agreement is reached within a time-limit to be Appeal:
specified by the Court, the proceedings are to continue
with a view to determining the quantum of the damage, Grounds of claim: — incorrect finding by the Board
and order the Community in any event to pay the of Appeal that the mark has
damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified, no distinctive character
alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
from the date of the application until payment in full;