Case T-78/01: Action brought on 30 March 2001 by INNOVA — Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), cultural event, infringement of EU law, suspension of aid

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/57

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 2 March 2001 by Saffron Investments
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-50/01)

(2001/C 200/107)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 March 2001 by Saffron Invest-
ments N.V., represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Isabelle
Buelens, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels
(Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 29 December 2000 of the Com-
mission, refusing to pay interest (and in particular interest
at a rate of 11,25 % pending an appeal and at a rate of
13,25 % thereafter) on an amount of 12 033 177,49
EUR, representing the fines and accrued late payment
interest paid to the Commission and refusing to reimburse
the expenses incurred in providing a bank guarantee in
order to cover the amount of the fines and interest until
payment on 16 December 1996;

— in the alternative, order the Commission, on the basis of
Articles 235 and 288 EC, to pay an amount of EUR
5 028 037,17 as compensation for damage incurred;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay default interest
on that amount from the date of the judgment of the
Court, at a rate applied by the European Monetary
Cooperation Fund on its operation in EURO as deter-
mined on the day on which the judgment is adopted plus
one and a half points;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its Cewal Decision (1), the Commission imposed a fine of
ECU 9 600 000 on CMB N.V. and a fine of ECU 200 000 on
Dafra Lines A/S.

An action was brought against the decision by CMB N.V. and
its separate legal entity for liner business, CMB Transport N.V.,
on the one hand, and Dafra Lines A/S, on the other hand. Bank
guarantees were provided for the amount of the fine and
interests by both parties.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the applications while
slightly reducing the fines (2). As a result of that judgment,
CMBT Investments N.V. (later known as Saffron Investments
N.V), to which CMB Transport N.V.’s obligation to pay the fine
had been transferred, and Dafra Lines A/S paid a total amount
of EUR 12 033 177,49, covering the amount of the fine plus
interest as from the date of the judgment.

The Court of Justice later annulled Articles 6 and 7 of the
Cewal Decision in so far as they imposed a fine on CMB N.V.
and on Dafra Lines A/S (3). As a result of that judgment, the
Commission reimbursed the applicant the amount of EUR
12 033 177,49 which had originally been paid. However, the
Commission did not pay any interest or reimburse the costs of
the bank guarantee that had initially been obtained in order to
cover the amount of the fines and its interests.

By letter of 29 December 2000, the Commission replied to
the applicant’s request for payment of interest and the costs
relating to the bank guarantees, stating that it had no obligation
to pay such interest or to refund the costs for the bank
guarantees.

The applicant seeks the annulment of
the Commission’s
decision and submits that the Commission has infringed Article
233 EC (ex Article 176), the principle of proportionality, the
principle of unjust enrichment and the fundamental principle
of non-discrimination. Alternatively,
it seeks compensation
under Articles 235 and 288 EC for damage incurred as a result
of the enforcement of the Cewal Decision, as subsequently
annulled in regard to CMB N.V. and Dafra Lines A/S.

(1) Decision of 23.12.1992, Cewal, OJ L 34 of 10.2.1993, p. 20.
(2) Judgment of 8.10.1996, in Joined Cases T-24/93-T26/96 and
T-28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v
Commission [1996] ECR II-1201.

(3) Judgment of 16.3.2000 in Joined Cases C-395/96 P and 396/93 P
Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v Commission
[not yet available in all languages].

Action brought on 30 March 2001 by INNOVA —
Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-78/01)

(2001/C 200/108)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 30 March

C 200/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

2001 by INNOVA — Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Svilup-
po Sostenibile, established in Calatafimi, Italy, represented by
Denis Waelbroeck and Jennifer Waldron, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance, should:

— In the first place,

— Order the Commission to pay the grant which it
undertook to pay under the contract concluded on
28 January 2000 in relation to the Una Festa per
Aristofane project,

— Order the Commission to pay interest on that sum;

— In the alternative,

— Annul the Commission’s decision to suspend pay-
ments in respect of the second and final phases of
the grant contract in relation to the Una Festa per
Aristofane project, notified to INNOVA by letter
from Mrs Efterpi Verigaki of 25 January 2001,

— Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

its obligation to pay the grants due in connection with the Una
Festa per Aristofane project by reason of non-performance —
which is not admitted — of obligations relating to another
project. Nor can the suspension of payment be seen as a penalty
within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
2988/95 (3).

Finally, neither of the contracts provides for set-off and set-off
is not authorised by any provision governing the programmes
concerned.

In support of its claim for annulment, the applicant claims,
inter alia, that the decision is illegal, in that it is ultra vires,
lacks a proper statement of reasons, infringes the applicant’s
rights of defence and infringes the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ 1999 C 163, p. 3.
(2) Based on Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000
Programme (OJ 2000 C 63, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

Contentions and principal arguments adduced in suppport

Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias
against the European Parliament

In June 1999 the Commission published a call for tenders (1) for
experimental events under the ‘Culture 2000’ programme (2). In
December 1999 the Commission approved a project drawn
up by the applicant which provided for the organisation of an
event entitled Una Festa per Aristofane the purpose of which
was to spread and increase young people’s awareness of their
common European heritage.

After receiving the first part of the grant, the applicant sent the
Commission a request for payment of the second instalment
and, later, for payment of the balance of the financial assistance
granted to the project. In reply the Commission informed the
applicant that the final payment had been blocked because of
an order for recovery of a larger sum from the applicant. That
order relate to another contract between the parties, which
had been terminated by the Commission. The applicant
instituted proceedings before the Belgian courts to have the
Commission’s decision to terminate the contract annulled.

The applicant claims that the Commission is in breach of its
contractual and legislative obligations. The contracts are
separate and non-performance of obligations under one con-
tract cannot justify the suspension of obligations arising from
the other. No provision of either contract or of the regulations
governing those contracts allows the Commission to suspend

(Case T-96/01)

(2001/C 200/109)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias, official of the European
Parliament, represented by Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer,
Sagia Chambers, Likavittou 5, Athens 106 72.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul:

(1)

the decision of the defendant of 20 October 2000
to stop unilaterally (or, in the alternative, not to allow
at all) the exchange of officials of 11 September
2000 with the Greek Ministry of Culture (on the
basis of which the applicant, as an official of the
defendant, was exchanged with an official of the
Ministry of Culture);

(2)

to pay the
the decision of
applicant his rightful remuneration for the period
from 16 September 2000 to 15 November 2000;

the defendant not