Case T-56/01: Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against European Central Bank
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, European official, action for annulment (EU), dismissal, service occupation, work contract

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;

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.