# C_2006190EN.01002902.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/29

---

Action brought on 27 June 2006 — Inalca and Cremonini v Commission

(Case T-174/06)

(2006/C 190/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Inalca and Cremonini (Modena, Italy) (represented by: Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Commission is liable for non-contractual damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Commission is liable for non-contractual damages;

| — | declare that the applicants have suffered damage, assessed at EUR 2 861 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the applicants have suffered damage, assessed at EUR 2 861 000;

| — | order the Commission to make good such damage together with compensatory interest and interest on any arrears; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to make good such damage together with compensatory interest and interest on any arrears;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant companies as a result of the adoption of the letter of 6 July 1998 in which UCLAF communicated to the Italian authorities the findings — which the applicants consider wholly inaccurate — of its investigation into alleged irregularities in the export, with refunds, of beef and veal to Jordan and made allegations which also had criminal-law implications against both companies and their directors.

In support of their claims, the applicants argue:

| — | infringement of the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 729/70 in that, firstly, the inspection carried out by UCLAF in Jordan is open to challenge since it exceeded the limits of its supervisory powers, which are confined to the territory of the Member States, and, secondly, UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare and conduct inspections and supervision with the prior agreement of the Member States and in the presence of the representatives of all the national authorities concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 729/70 in that, firstly, the inspection carried out by UCLAF in Jordan is open to challenge since it exceeded the limits of its supervisory powers, which are confined to the territory of the Member States, and, secondly, UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare and conduct inspections and supervision with the prior agreement of the Member States and in the presence of the representatives of all the national authorities concerned.

| — | Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and of Article 4 of Regulation No 2185/96 in that UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare on-the-spot checks and inspections in close collaboration with the Member States and to inform the competent national authorities before carrying out such checks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and of Article 4 of Regulation No 2185/96 in that UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare on-the-spot checks and inspections in close collaboration with the Member States and to inform the competent national authorities before carrying out such checks.

| — | Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation No 3665/87 in that UCLAF disregarded the probative value recognised and conferred by that regulation on a series of expressly listed documents and arbitrarily gave preference to a series of other documents, undermining the principle of legal certainty and the transparency of checks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation No 3665/87 in that UCLAF disregarded the probative value recognised and conferred by that regulation on a series of expressly listed documents and arbitrarily gave preference to a series of other documents, undermining the principle of legal certainty and the transparency of checks.

The applicants also plead infringement of the principles of good administration, diligence and proportionality and breach of professional secrecy.

Lastly, the applicants state that, even if UCLAF's conduct may not be open to censure, UCLAF is none the less liable for causing the applicants loss. The latter could not reasonably foresee, and therefore prevent, the damage that would be caused to them by an investigation which, they assert, proved to be wholly erroneous.

---