Case T-359/00: Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), monetary compensatory amount, producer organisation, sea fish

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/21

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of
17 August 2000 to stop paying the household allowance and
to deduct from the applicant’s monthly pension for the period
from April 2000 to January 2001 the household allowance
alleged by the Commission to have been unduly paid since
24 September 1998, the date of the death of the applicant’s
spouse.

The applicant claims that, since the death of his wife, he has
been in a situation of the type referred to in Article 1(c) of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and that he therefore
continues to be entitled to receive the household allowance.

Action brought on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade
Foods NV against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-350/00)

(2001/C 45/45)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade
Foods NV, having its registered office in Curaçao (Netherlands
Antilles), represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, of the
Trenité Van Doorne Chambers, Rotterdam and Brussels, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of De
Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods to be

admissible;

(2)

(3)

annul Regulation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000
introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (hereinafter ‘the third
safeguard measure’) (1);

rule that the Community is liable for the damage incurred
by Free Trade Foods as a result of the third safeguard
measure, that the parties reach agreement on the extent
of the damage incurred by Free Trade Foods, and, in the
absence of agreement on that matter, that the procedure
be continued, within a period to be set by the Court, to
determine the extent of that damage, and order the
Community to pay compensation for the damage as
provisionally estimated and still to be estimated; in the
alternative, it should order the Community to pay such
compensation as the Court may reasonably determine,
plus applicable interest from the date of the document
instituting these proceedings until the date of full pay-
ment;

(4) order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Free Trade Foods NV (‘FTF’) owns a sugar factory on Curaçao.
In 2000 it intended to process approximately 50 000 tonnes.

FTF is entirely dependent on the processing of C-sugar
originating in the Community, which, as a result of EC/OCT
cumulation, obtains an OCT origin and can thus be imported
into the Community free from duty.

As a result of the third safeguard measure a very limited quota
of 4 848 tonnes now applies.

FTF sets out the following four pleas in law in support of
annulment of the third safeguard measure and payment of
compensation:

1.

2.

3.

Infringement of Article 109 of the OCT Decision;

Infringement of the order of priority established in the
EC Treaty in favour of OCT goods;

Infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
guard Measures (concluded within the framework of the
WTO), together with infringement of Article 300(7) EC;

4.

Illegality of Regulation No 2553/97.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September
2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard
measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories
of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ
2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64).

Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organizacio´ n
de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congela-
dores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-359/00)

(2001/C 45/46)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 November 2000 by the Orga-
nizacio´ n de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
Congeladores (OPAGAC), whose registered office is at Madrid,
represented by Jesu´ s Casas Robla and Vanessa Arrastia de la
Sierra.

C 45/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Article 2(2) of, and
the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1926/2000
of 11 September 2000 and Article 2(2) of, and the annex
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1103/2000 of 25 May
2000 providing for the granting of compensation to
producers’ organisations in respect of tuna delivered to
the processing industry from 1 October to 31 December
1999 (OJ 2000 L 125, p. 18 and OJ 2000 L 230, p. 10);

provides compensation which offsets and stabilises the income
of fishery producers can only mean that, whenever a producer
switches from one producers’ organisation to another, the
bases for calculation laid down in Article 18(4) of the basic
regulation must be amended to the same extent.

The applicant further alleges misuse of powers by the Com-
mission.

— in the alternative, annul such articles and annexes on the
ground that the Commission misused its powers when
interpreting Article 18 of the basic regulation;

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 of 22 December 1994
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common organ-
ization of the market in fishery products and aquaculture (OJ
1994 L 350, p. 15).

— order the Commission to provide for a new regulation
correcting the tonnage distributed between OPAGAC and
OPTUC in view of changes in their respective tonnage;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant organisation explains, first and foremost, that
its composition changed on 1 July 1998 when it was joined
by two undertakings which had previously been part of
APTUC, another tuna producers’ organisation. Since then, the
registered tonnage and catches of the applicant organisation
has increased, thus changing the basis for calculating the
compensation laid down in the basic regulation (1).

Following publication of Regulation No 1103/2000, cited
above, the applicant became aware of the fact that compen-
sation had been distributed among producers’ organisations
without account being taken of changes to tonnages by
associations, so it then made the appropriate approaches to
the Spanish and Union authorities.

Without resolving the matter of allocations for the third
the Commission adopted Regulation
quarter of 1999,
No 1926/2000, cited above, in which the allocations are, in
the view of the applicant, also erroneous.

To date, the Commission has still not replied to the request of
the Secretarı´a General de Pesca Marı´tima for the correct
interpretation of the applicable legislation, so that the applicant
is obliged to seek the interpretation of the basic regulations
implied in the articles of and annexes to the regulations
providing for compensation in respect of the period running
from 1 October to 31 December 1999.

In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
by the contested provisions of Article 18(4) of Regulation
No 3579/92, cited above. In its view, the fact that the measure

Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-360/00)

(2001/C 45/47)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 November 2000 by Dart
Industries Inc., represented by Kay-Uwe Jonas of Oppenhoff &
Rädler (Cologne) Germany.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision R 278/2000-1 of 22 Sep-

tember 2000;

— order that the Application No. 716597 ‘UltraPlus’ be
referred back to OHIM to be published in accordance
with CTMR Article 40 in respect of all the goods claimed
therein;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.