Case T-69/01: Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against the European Central Bank
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, action for annulment (EU), dismissal, security services, servant (EU), work contract

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/35

The applicant claims that those three special features have
resulted in the applicant and operators in a similar position
being granted lower reference quantities than they would have
received if the rules governing the organisation of the market
had continued to be applied without being changed.

Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Internationale
Fruchtimportgesellschaft Weichert & Co. against the
Council of the European Union and the Commission of
the European Communities

The applicant seeks, by way of compensation, to be placed in
the position in which it would have been had its reference
quantity for 1999 been calculated in accordance with the
unchanged rules governing the organisation of the market.

In support of its claims, it asserts that the Community has
infringed Article 6 of Regulation No 1924/95 (2) and the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by failing
to determine the applicant’s rights of access to the market in
1999 in accordance with Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation
No 1442/93. In addition, it maintains that the Community has
failed, in its formulation of the prohibition of retroactive effect,
to respect the requirement of legal certainty, in that it has
retroactively applied the distribution formula prescribed by
Regulation No 2362/98 (3) to reference quantities from the
years 1994 to 1996.

In addition, the special rules applying to operators in the new
Member States infringe the prohibition of discrimination laid
down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC;
moreover, no adequate statement of reasons has been given.

Lastly,
the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organisation has declared that the system for the allocation of
import licences, as laid down in Regulations Nos 1637/98 and
2362/98, is incompatible in certain essential respects with the
law governing the World Trade Organisation. In the applicant’s
view, the Community has failed to respect the fact that it is
bound by that decision.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements
for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1924/95 of 3 August 1995
laying down transitional measures for the application of the tariff
quota arrangements for imports of bananas as a result of the
accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 185, p. 24).
(3) 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 (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).

(Case T-65/01)

(2001/C 173/63)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 19 March 2001 by Internationale Fruchtimportgesellschaft
Weichert & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represent-
ed by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

to the

to pay

the defendants

applicant
EUR 3 604 232 together with interest thereon at the rate
of 2,9 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 3 604 232 ;

— declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
suffered by
(EC)
Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
contained therein;

result of Regulations

as

it

a

— reserve its decision as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
advanced in Case T-64/01 (Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie
GmbH v Council and Commission).

Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
Tralli against the European Central Bank

(Case T-69/01)

(2001/C 173/64)

(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 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau
(Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte.

C 173/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the President of the European
Central Bank of 12 March 2001 rejecting the applicant’s
complaint;

— annul the defendant’s decision, at least in so far as
regards Article 43 of the Normas Forales mentioned in
Article 1(b), (c) and (d) of that decision;

— annul the defendant’s notice of termination dated 29 No-

vember 2000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— declare

the

that

relationship existing
between the parties has not been brought to an end by
the notice of termination dated 29 November 2000;

employment

— declare

the

that

relationship existing
between the parties has continued to exist, without being
terminated, after 31 December 2000;

employment

— order the defendant to continue, beyond 31 December
2000, to provide the applicant with employment as a
security guard in accordance with the contractually agreed
conditions of employment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the same facts and circumstances as in
Cases T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001, p. 61),
T-27/01 Tralli v ECB (not yet published) and T-56/01 Tralli v
ECB (not yet published); the pleas in law and arguments
advanced are analogous to those put forward in those cases.

Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histo´ rico
de Alava — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava and Others against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-77/01)

(2001/C 173/65)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against Commission Decision of
31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (1), in so far
as it finds any aid granted by Spain under Article 43 of
Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 on corporation tax
adopted by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya; Article 43 of
Provincial Act 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
adopted by the Provincial Council of Guipu´ zcoa; and Article 43
of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
adopted by the Provincial Council of A´ lava, to ECSC steel
undertakings established in Spain is incompatible with the
common market in coal and steel.

Those fiscal provisions grant a 25 % reduction in respect of
investments actually made in, inter alia, the creation of branches
or permanent establishments abroad as well as the acquisition
of shares in foreign companies or the setting-up of subsidiaries
directly associated with the export of goods or services.

The contested decision was adopted following the procedure
laid down in Article 6(5) of Commission Decision
No 2496/96/ECSC (‘the Steel Aid Code’).

In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that:

— the aid is non-existent, inasmuch as the provisions in
issue are horizontal in nature and are of general appli-
cation which does not result in any advantage either at
regional level or with respect to a specific category of
undertaking. The aid is non-existent also under the ECSC
Treaty, so that the applicants allege infringement of
Article 4(c) of that Treaty, as well as misuse of powers,
on the ground that the defendant chose the ECSC Treaty
as the basis for its decision.

— the Commission has failed to state reasons, in particular
inasmuch as the contested decision amounts to a change
of assessment criterion on the part of the Commission,
which has given no reasons for it.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 March 2001 by Territorio
Histo´ rico de Alava — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava and Others,
Spain, represented by Ramo´ n Falco´ n, lawyer.

— the Commission has failed to state reasons and committed
an error of assessment, inasmuch as the finding of aid
automatically applies to the Normas Forales by the mere
fact that they coincide, so far as their content is concerned,
with State tax legislation.