Case T-47/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA soc. coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fraud, import, import licence, tropical fruit

19.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/31

The Commission responded to that request with two consecu-
tive refusals grounded on the requirements of ‘commercial
secrecy’ and the ‘authorship rule’.

In the circumstances, the applicant takes the view that the
Commission’s refusal on two separate occasions and for two
contradictory reasons is unjustified and prevents an operator,
whose economic activity is closely dependent on the market
in bananas being regulated and in which the Commission has
above all powers of oversight, from checking whether such
regulation is being properly managed.

In support of its arguments, the applicant claims infringement
of the Code of Conduct adopted by the Commission by
94/90/ECSC, EC, EURATOM and Declaration No 17 appended
to the Final Act of the Maastricht Treaty, as well as abuse of
powers.

The applicant requests compensation in respect of the loss
allegedly suffered as a result of
the Commission having
committed a fault for the purposes of Article 288 of the EC
Treaty in awarding the contract to Frezza Belgium SA which
caused loss to the applicant, who was the only person to
have submitted a tender which complied with the product
specification.

Action brought on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA soc.
coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-47/01)

(2001/C 150/61)

(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 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA
soc. coop. a.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Mariano
Paolin and Simonetta Donà, avvocati.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission — contained in
the letter of 31 July 2000 of the Director General for
Agriculture and letter of 5 December 2000 of
the
Secretary General — whereby access was refused to the
documents referred to in the request submitted by Co-
Frutta on 27 June 2000 and again on 1 September 2000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant requested access to documents in the Com-
mission’s possession relating to the common organisation of
the market in bananas. That request was prompted by the fact
that it had come to the notice of the applicant that enormous
quantities of bananas had been imported into the Community
market under forged import licences or licences which had
been issued on the basis of false or erroneous reference
quantities. It therefore asked the Commission a copy of or, at
least, permission to consult on the premises, the lists of the
operators registered in the Community or of the quantities
they had respectively imported during the reference period
and therefore of the provisional reference quantity allocated to
each of
them, as well as the licences used and related
documents.

Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
Tralli against European Central Bank

(Case T-56/01)

(2001/C 150/62)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau,
Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
Silvia Mittländer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

find that, in failing to respond in writing to the applicant
in respect of his complaint, in accordance with a letter of
5 February 2001, the defendant’s President infringed the
last paragraph of Article 8.1.5 of the European Central
Bank Staff Rules;

2.

in the event that some of the forms of order sought in
Case T-373/00 are refused:

— annul the notice of dismissal issued by the defendant

of 29 November 2000;

— find that the employment relationship between the
parties continues to subsist unchanged beyond
31 December 2000;