Case T-64/01: Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), import, tariff quota, tropical fruit

C 173/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Marie-Josée Bollen-
dorff against the European Parliament

Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-
Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European
Union and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-60/01)

(2001/C 173/61)

(Case T-64/01)

(2001/C 173/62)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 13 March 2000 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing at
Bertrange (Luxembourg), represented by Laurent Mosar, avo-
cat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision by which the appointing authority
took the view that the applicant’s absence from 21 March
2000 to 30 April 2000 was irregular and deducted 194
working hours from her annual leave entitlement;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH,
established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gerrit
Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

to the

to pay

the defendants

applicant
EUR 1 358 228 together with interest thereon at the rate
of 3,75 % 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 1 358 228 ;

— 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

The applicant’s incapacity for work, certified by two doctors,
was contested by the institution’s medical officer. Those two
doctors then confirmed their certificates, and the applicant
was absent during the period covered by the certificates. Later
on, the applicant discovered that the time for which she had
been absent during the period in question had been deducted
from her annual leave entitlement.

— reserve its decision as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claim, the applicant maintains that the
deduction decision was adopted in breach of Articles 59 and
60 [of the Staff Regulations] and that it therefore has no legal
basis whatever.

According to the applicant, no decision concerning a
deduction from her annual leave entitlement was notified to
her by the head of the Personnel Division, and the appointing
authority at no time communicated to the applicant any
decision which would have enabled her to comment on the
fact that the certificates were contested. Consequently, the
European Parliament has infringed Article 25 of the Staff
Regulations.

The applicant has for many years sold bananas from third
countries to customers in Austria, Finland and Sweden.

The action concerns the calculation of the applicant’s reference
quantities for 1999. According to the applicant, that calcu-
lation is characterised by three special features which derogate
from the rules governing the organisation of the market
applying in respect of the years prior to 1999, and as a result
of which the market operators existing in the Community up
until 31 December 1994 have been placed at a disadvantage,
whilst advantageous treatment has been afforded to operators
in the new Member States. First, the rule governing the
determination of the reference period has been changed.
Next,
in calculating the reference quantities for 1999, the
Community proceeded on the basis of excessively high quanti-
ties in so far as concerns market operators in Austria, Finland
and Sweden. Lastly, although the reference quantities for 1999
should have been calculated in accordance with Articles 3 and
5 of Regulation No 1442/93 (1), they were in fact calculated in
accordance with the criterion of the so-called ‘actual importer’.

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.