# C_2004284EN.01001703.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/17

---

Action brought on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad Limitada, Oleo Unión, Federación Empresarial de Organizaciones de Productores de Aceite de Oliva, and Unaproliva, Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de Oliva against Council of the European Union

(Case T-287/04)

(2004/C 284/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad Limitada, having its registered office in Estepa, Oleo Unión, Federación Empresarial de Organizaciones de Productores de Aceite de Oliva, having its registered office in Sevilla and Unaproliva, Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de Oliva, having its registered office in Jaén (all in Spain), represented by Rafael Illescas Ortiz, of the Madrid Bar.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Regulations (EC) Nos 864/2004 and 865/2004 of 29 April 2004; in particular, as regards Regulation No 864/2004, the Court should annul the following provisions:






  i. | Article 1(7) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph in Article 37(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul Council Regulations (EC) Nos 864/2004 and 865/2004 of 29 April 2004; in particular, as regards Regulation No 864/2004, the Court should annul the following provisions:

i.

Article 1(7) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph in Article 37(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003;

| ii. | Article 1(11) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph to paragraph 2 of Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270); |
| --- | --- |

ii.

Article 1(11) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph to paragraph 2 of Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270);

| iii. | Article 1(20) insofar as, when inserting a new Chapter 10b – ‘Aid for olive groves’– into Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270) it adds a new Article 110h and, in particular, Article 1(20)(b) of the abovementioned Article 110h; |
| --- | --- |

iii.

Article 1(20) insofar as, when inserting a new Chapter 10b – ‘Aid for olive groves’– into Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270) it adds a new Article 110h and, in particular, Article 1(20)(b) of the abovementioned Article 110h;

| iv. | the annex, insofar as it amends Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270) adding four new rows and, in particular, the second such new row concerning olive oil insofar as it refers to Article 5 of Regulation 136/66/CEE – Aid for olive oil production – which provides for a national guaranteed amount (NGA) for Spain of 760 027 tons; |
| --- | --- |

iv.

the annex, insofar as it amends Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270) adding four new rows and, in particular, the second such new row concerning olive oil insofar as it refers to Article 5 of Regulation 136/66/CEE – Aid for olive oil production – which provides for a national guaranteed amount (NGA) for Spain of 760 027 tons;

| — | as regards Regulation 865/2004 the Court should annul the following provision:






  — | Article 22 insofar as it repeals Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1638/98 so far as concerns, exclusively, the second and third subparagraphs thereof and only to the extent that they amount to fundamental criteria for fixing the aid for income of oil producers under the new scheme based on Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

as regards Regulation 865/2004 the Court should annul the following provision:

—

Article 22 insofar as it repeals Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1638/98 so far as concerns, exclusively, the second and third subparagraphs thereof and only to the extent that they amount to fundamental criteria for fixing the aid for income of oil producers under the new scheme based on Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants claim that the contested regulations entail the introduction into the common agricultural policy of a new aid scheme for olive oil and table olive producers as well as a new common organisation of the markets in such products, derogating from, inter alia, the long-established Regulation No 136/66/EEC of the Council of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats. Unlike the longstanding mechanism for aid for production, the new system established by the contested regulations removes direct aid to producers and introduces a system of single payments, which means, for the olive oil sector, from 2006, a move from a policy of supporting prices and production to a new policy of support for the income of olive producers.

inter alia

The applicants take the view that the abovementioned reform is not based on proper information and sectorial analysis, as indicated by the maintenance of the 760 027 tons of olive oil as, previously, a national guaranteed amount (NGA) and now, under the new aid scheme, as a basic reference for the quantification of the new aid which replaces the aid to production which has been repealed.

In support of their claims, the applicants allege:

| — | breach of the principle of legal expectations. The applicants state, first, that the affected producers were particularly disappointed in the expectations created by the common organisation of the market which has now been reformed inasmuch as those affected are oil producers which, in view of the circumstances in the sector, made decisions regarding investment decisions in respect of very long-term income forecasts and, furthermore, that the reference marketing years for the new aid (from 1999/2000 to 2002/2003) happen to be periods in which oil producers who planted a crop in 1998 do not have a significant harvest. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle of legal expectations. The applicants state, first, that the affected producers were particularly disappointed in the expectations created by the common organisation of the market which has now been reformed inasmuch as those affected are oil producers which, in view of the circumstances in the sector, made decisions regarding investment decisions in respect of very long-term income forecasts and, furthermore, that the reference marketing years for the new aid (from 1999/2000 to 2002/2003) happen to be periods in which oil producers who planted a crop in 1998 do not have a significant harvest.

| — | misuse of powers. Reliance is placed, in particular, in that regard, on the existence of an undertaking obtained by the Commission and the Council in 1998, and again in 2001, concerning the obtention by them of reliable information on the olive oil sector as a condition prior to its reform, as well as the essential need to take into account developments in production and the future of olive-growing in Spain and Portugal. None the less, according to the applicants, reliable information regarding oil production in Spain could already have been provided by the Commission itself to the International Oil Council, so that neither the Commission nor the Council could have been unaware of it. |
| --- | --- |

—

misuse of powers. Reliance is placed, in particular, in that regard, on the existence of an undertaking obtained by the Commission and the Council in 1998, and again in 2001, concerning the obtention by them of reliable information on the olive oil sector as a condition prior to its reform, as well as the essential need to take into account developments in production and the future of olive-growing in Spain and Portugal. None the less, according to the applicants, reliable information regarding oil production in Spain could already have been provided by the Commission itself to the International Oil Council, so that neither the Commission nor the Council could have been unaware of it.

| — | failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons, enshrined in Article 253 of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons, enshrined in Article 253 of the EC Treaty.

| — | breach of the principle of non-discrimination of Community producers, as laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle of non-discrimination of Community producers, as laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

---