C 317/34 EN 10.11.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Calberson G.E. therefore entitled to hold the Commission liable, as principal
or master, for the acts of those who have acted on its behalf. against Commission of the European Communities
Furthermore, Article 9(3) of Regulation No 111/1999 (2) must
be interpreted as meaning that the intervention agency is liable(Case T-215/01)for the additional costs incurred by the successful tenderer
where those costs are due to a delay in unloading or in the
making available of the goods by the intervention agency or at (2001/C 317/66)
the storage location.
(Language of the case: French)
In the alternative, even if the Commission is not guarantor of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- the acts of intervening parties, the applicant submits that the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the conditions for a finding of non-contractual liability of the
European Communities on 20 September 2001 by Calberson Community are satisfied in the present case.
G.E., established in Paris, represented by Thierry Gallois,
lawyer.
(1) OJ L 220, 20.8.1999, p. 3.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18.1.1999, laying The applicant claims that the Court should:
down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to— order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way ofthe Russian Federation (OJ L 14, 19.1.1999, p. 3).compensation:
— Euros 14 290 .61;
— USD 57 859 .56, together with legal interest with
effect from the eighth day after each unpaid invoiceof Calberson G.E.;
Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Migrants de l’Union Européenne against the Commission
of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments(Case T-217/01)
The present dispute concerns the performance of lot No 4 (2001/C 317/67)
organised by Commission Regulation No 1815/1999 of
18 August 1999, relating to the supply of skimmed milk(Language of the case: French)powder to Russia (
1). Under the terms of that transaction,
Alpine, the storage firm of the intervention agency, was to
load the goods on the applicant’s means of transport.An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 11 September 2001 by the ForumAccording to the applicant, Alpine initially demanded paymentdes Migrants de L’Union Européenne (the European Unionof additional loading costs and the issue of guarantees for theMigrants Forum), established in Brussels, represented byreturn of pallets. The Commission agreed that the applicantEmmanuel Degrez, lawyer.was right to refuse payment, whereupon the intervention
agency was asked to intervene with Alpine and to require it to
drop its claim. Alpine then took much longer than planned
The applicant claims that the Court should: when unloading and loading the applicant’s lorries. Those two
difficulties led to a delay in loading the ship chartered by
Calberson, with demurrage arising for the loss of use of the— annul the decision notified to the applicant on 11 Julyvessel both at the port of departure and port of destination.2001 by the Directorate General for Justice and Home
Affairs of the Commission terminating the financial
support from the Commission under Article A0-3040 ofThe applicant alleges that the Commission has incurred boththe Community budget on the basis of Article 1 of thecontractual and non-contractual liability.general conditions of the grant agreement for the financial
year 2000;
As regards contractual liability, Calberson considers that it
follows from the principles generally accepted in the laws of — order that the costs and expenses of the case be paid by
the Directorate General for Justice and Home Affairs of all the Member States that the principal is guarantor of the acts
of its agents or those acting on its behalf. The applicant is the Commission.
10.11.2001 EN C 317/35 Official Journal of the European Communities
Pleas in law and principal arguments lenging the decision. The applicant also disputes the stipulation
in the decision that other information and supporting docu-ments were necessary. According to the applicant it hadThe applicant is a non-governmental organisation whosesubmitted all the necessary documents and, if the Commissionobjects are to fight racism and to protect the interests ofrequired other material, it should have requested it from theimmigrants in the European Union. To that end the applicantapplicant.received subsidies from the Commission for the year 2000, in
accordance with the agreement entered into by the two parties.
In the challenged decision the Council terminated that financial
aid because of financial irregularities established against the
applicant.
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E. In support of its action the applicant relies on:
against the Commission of the European Communities
— failure to observe the general conditions of the grant
agreement of 24 May 2000; (Case T-220/01)
— failure to respect the rights of the defence in an adminis-(2001/C 317/69)trative case. According to the applicant the disputed
decision was made without the applicant being heard and
(Language of the case: French) was not based on proper reasons;
— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations. An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by CalbersonG.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
Gallois, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should: Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire
Monique Remy against the Commission of the European
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen- Communities
sation equal to the amounts of the following invoices:
(Case T-218/01)— BRU 0135 963 for DEM 82 991,96 — additional
loading charges;
(2001/C 317/68)
— BRU 0135 098 for DEM 900 corresponding to fines
paid to the Polish authorities; (Language of the case: French)
— BRU 0135 099 for DEM 6 960 corresponding toAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-fines paid to the Polish authorities;ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire— BRU 0135 964 for DEM 16 050 — the cost ofMonique Remy, established at Grasse (France), represented byplastic sheeting charged by the store manager;Jean-Félix Pupel, lawyer.
— order that interest at the legal rate be added to the
compensation from the 8th day after each unpaid invoice; The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2001)1380
of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial assistance granted
— order that all the costs be paid by the Commission. to the applicant by Commission Decision C(93)3185 of
10 November 1993 concerning the grant of aid from theEAGGF Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.FR.06.027Pleas in law and principal argumentsentitled: ‘Pilot project to demonstrate exploitation of the Iris, a
Mediterranean plant, for the luxury perfume industry and food
flavourings (France, Spain, Greece)’.This case concerns the execution of Lots 5 and 7 of Regulation
No 1799/1999 on the transport of beef from the interventionstock in Germany to Russia. Under the terms of that regulation,
the applicant was to provide, at the departure points, servicesPleas in law and principal argumentscomprising handling and loading the means of transport. The
applicant invoiced the intervention agency for those services
in compliance with the quotation which had been given to the The applicant claims that the decision does not observe the
code of sound administrative conduct because it does not applicant by the intervention agency, which had itself received
the quotation from the company managing the store. contain any information concerning the possibilities of chal-