Case T-45/01: Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Joint European Torus, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, temporary employment

C 134/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

Action brought on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo Vieira y
Vieira Argentina, S.A. against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-44/01)

(2001/C 134/56)

(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 26 February 2001 by Eduardo
Vieira y Vieira Argentina, S.A., whose registered office is in
Pontevedra (Spain), represented by Ramo´ n Garcı´a-Gallardo
and Mª Dolores Domı´nguez Pérez.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the Commission to compensate the applicants for
the damage caused to them by delayed payment of part
of the aid;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action was brought by two undertakings owners
in the context of the Fishing
of fishing vessels to which,
Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Repub-
lic, the Community granted in 1995 a subsidy for the export
to Argentina of a vessel
flying a Community flag to a
joint Community-Argentinian company. In this regard the
applicants claim that, more than 5 years after the joint
company was set up, the defendant institution not only has
not paid the remaining balance of the assistance, amounting
to EUR 432 846,28, it even seeks to recover the part of the
amount paid by the beneficiaries.

The purpose of the present application is precisely to seek
from the Commission compensation for the damage caused to
the applicants by delaying payment of the outstanding balance
of the assistance. Furthermore, the Commission never deemed
it necessary to suspend the assistance, so that it has never
notified beneficiaries formally that the assistance had been
suspended. The defendant has in fact initiated a proceeding
seeking to reduce the amount, the outcome being suspension
of payment of the balance of the assistance.

In support of its claims, the applicants claim:

— Erroneous legal basis,

inasmuch as the Commission
claims that the legal basis for initiating a proceeding
for reduction is Regulation Council Regulation (EEC)
No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down pro-
visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
as regards coordination of the activities of the different
Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
existing financial instruments. (1). On the contrary, the
applicants consider that that legal basis is not applicable
to joint companies set up under the EC/Argentina Agree-
ment. That error with respect to the legal basis also affects
the quantum by which the assistance may be reduced.

— Complete disregard by the Commission for the legal
scheme applicable to joint fishing companies which it
proposed itself pursuant to the Fishing Agreement with
Argentina, so far as concerns both the erroneous appli-
cation of the general proceeding and the absence of a
decision suspending the financial assistance.

— Breach by the defendant of the duties of care and good
administration, as well as its obligation to act within a
reasonable time.

— Breach of

the rights of

the defence of one of

the
applicants, inasmuch as Vieira Argentina SA was never
notified by the Commission of its intention to reduce the
assistance, much less to suspend it for the duration of the
proceedings.

(1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.

Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
Others against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-45/01)

(2001/C 134/57)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
Others, represented by Ian Hutton, of Monckton Chambers,
London (U.K.).

5.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/27

The applicants claim that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision dated 14 November

2000;

— order the Commission to compensate the applicants for
the loss of earnings, pension, benefits and privileges
occasioned to them by breaches of Community law;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against a decision of the Join European
Torus (JET) Appointing Authority declining a request for
compensation made by the applicants for losses resulting from
the Commission’s method of engaging them to work on the
JET project without recruiting them to temporary Commission
posts.

The applicants claim that, in so doing, the Commission:

— was in breach of the fundamental principle of non-
discrimination in that in several respects the applicants
were materially disadvantaged, to a significant extent,
compared to those in temporary Commission posts; and

— was in breach of, or alternatively ultra vires, the Statutes
governing the JET Project, prior to the amendment of the
Statutes which took effect on 21 October 1998; in so
far as the said amendment purported to preclude the
Commission from recruiting the applicants to temporary
posts, the amendment was to the extent unlawful and
invalid.

Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl
and Others against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-46/01)

(2001/C 134/58)

(Language of the case: Italian)

— annul the decision of the Commission, notified by letter
of 8 December 2000 AGR No 030905, which arrived on
21 December 2000, signed by Director-General
for
Agriculture J.M. Silva Rodrı´guez, pursuant to Articles 230
and 231 of the EC Treaty;

— and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 of
the EC Treaty;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant companies have for many years marketed third-
country bananas. In 2000, like 1999, they were allocated a
reference quantity established by reference to the average
quantity of bananas imported from third countries in the
three-year period 1994/1995/1996, and so they regularly
submitted, during 2000, applications for quarterly licences to
import bananas from third countries. For the fourth quarter of
2000, the applicants submitted applications for import licences
in respect of the quantities left over from the yearly quantity
allocated to them, indicating as origins for the product they
sought to import one or more third countries.

Under Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98
of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
regarding imports of bananas into the Community (1), the
applicants could have submitted applications for licences for
the
the fourth quarter of 2000, but only in respect of
traditional ACP countries,
still
for which there were
329 787,675 tonnes, the other sources having by now been
completely exhausted. Since in 1999 they had requested and
obtained import
licences for ACP countries up to their
reference quantity, but had not been able to use them because
it had been impossible to find bananas from those origins in
2000, they renounced their use of the licence in order not to
risk losing the security lodged, as had happened the previous
year.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl
and others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and Gabrie-
le Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, rue Mathias
Hardt.

The applicants therefore requested the Commission to issue
them import licences in respect of third-country bananas for a
reduced amount, even if the quota was exhausted, or to
compensate them for the losses suffered as a result of their not
being able to use up the whole of their respective reference
quantities. The defendant’s refusal in this regard is at the heart
of the present proceedings.