Case T-61/01: Action brought on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurías de Armadores Reunidos S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, aid system, appeal to the Court (EU), balance of payments assistance, fishing industry, payment

C 150/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

— order the defendant to continue employing the
applicant on the contractual terms as a security man;

According to the applicant, there has been a clear breach of:

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The origin of the case is the same as in Cases T-373/00 (Tralli
v ECB, OJ C 61 of 24 February 2001, p. 61) and T-27/01
(Tralli v ECB, not yet published). The pleas in law and
arguments are the same as those advanced in these cases.

Action brought on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı´as de
Armadores Reunidos S.A. against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-61/01)

(2001/C 150/63)

(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 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı´as de
Armadores Reunidos S.A., established in Huelva (Spain),
represented by Ramo´ n Garcı´a-Gallardo (lawyer) and Mª Dolor-
es Domı´nguez Pérez.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Commission to pay Vendedurı´as de
Armadores Reunidos S.A. compensation for damage and
loss caused by the delayed payment of a part of its aid;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action involves a claim alleging non-contractual liability
on the part of the Commission for the unlawful suspension of
payment of 20 % of the aid granted to the applicant, causing
it serious financial loss.

— Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December
1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt
structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (1) and
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1956/91 of 21 June
1991 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 as
regards
measures to encourage the creation of joint enterprises (2);

— Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 of 20 April
1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of
decisions granting aid for projects concerning Com-
munity measures to improve and adapt structures in the
fisheries and aquaculture sector and in structural works
in coastal waters (3).

The applicant submits that the European Commission failed
to observe the procedure laid down in those regulations for
cases in which, on account of the need for supplementary
analysis of the conditions for payment, the payment of aid
granted to a joint enterprise has to be suspended. The
Commission’s breach arises from three facts: (1) it did not
consult the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry; (2) it
did not consult the Spanish authorities. Nor did it give them
an opportunity to be involved in the suspension procedure;
(3) it did not adopt the suspension by means of a formal
decision but merely by letter. According to Community case-
law, a failure to observe an established procedure entails the
nullity ab initio of the measures.

The applicant draws attention to the fact that, as regards the
Community’s liability, the three requirements laid down by
case-law are met in the present case: there is a wrongful act,
actual harm and a causal link between the wrongful conduct
and the damage caused. The compensation claimed is the
accrued interest
the
principle established by case-law that the recipient of aid has a
right, at the very least, to payment of interest in the case of an
infringement of the applicable legislation.

for late payment,

in application of

(1) OJ 1986 L 376 p. 7, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (OJ 1990 L 380, p. 1) and
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3946/92 of 19 December 1992 (OJ
1992 L 401, p. 1).
(2) OJ 1992 L 401, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.