Case T-46/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), distribution business, import licence, quantitative restriction, tropical fruit

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.

C 134/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
on in Case T-93/00 Alessandrini and Others v Commission (2).

(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.
(2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 25.

Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-52/01)

(2001/C 134/59)

(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 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer,
represented by Juan Ramo´ n Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2001
relating to the applicant’s transfer back from Montevideo
(Uruguay) to Brussels;

— annul, if appropriate, the Commission’s note of 30 No-
vember 2000 informing the applicant of the decision to
transfer him back from Montevideo (Uruguay) to Brussels;

The applicant submits that the Commission justifies that
decision by alleging that the Paraguayan authorities have
expressed reservations about him but that it fails to mention
the factual and legal matters of which the applicant should be
aware in order, if necessary, to be able to defend his own
professional conduct.

The applicant considers that the decision at issue infringes
Article 7 of the Staff Regulations since it is contrary to the
interest of the service. In his view, the interest of the service
specifically requires him to remain in his current post and
continue the complex work which has been assigned to him
and of which he has already gained sound experience.

The applicant further submits that the decision is vitiated by a
complete failure to state the grounds and has been adopted
without the Commission at any time taking account of the
views of the party concerned, contrary to the requirements of
case-law.

Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane S.p.A.
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-53/01)

(2001/C 134/60)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane
S.p.A., represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen,
Alessandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
avvocati.

— order the immediate suspension and, if appropriate, the
subsequent annulment of any procedure initiated with a
view to filling the vacancy arising from the order
transferring the applicant;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— order, if appropriate, the annulment of the corresponding

appointment of an official to fill the post;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is based in the European Commission’s
Delegation in Montevideo (Uruguay), was notified of a decision
dated 12 February 2001 posting him back to Brussels with
effect from 12 March 2001.

By this action, Poste Italiane SpA is seeking the annulment of
the decision of the Commission of 21 December 2000,
adopted on the basis of Article 86(3) of the Treaty, in relation
to the provision of certain new postal services with a
guaranteed day- or time-certain delivery. That decision declares
incompatible with Article 4(4) of the Treaty Legislative Decree
No 261/99 of 22 July 1999 implementing Directive 97/67/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December
1997 on common rules for the development of the internal
market of Community postal services and the improvement of
quality of service.(1);