Case T-142/01: Action brought on 21 June 2001 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC) against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), aid system, fishery product, monetary compensatory amount, producer organisation

C 245/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

Action brought on 21 June 2001 by Organizacio´ n de
Productores de Tu´ nidos Congelados (OPTUC) against
Commission of the European Communities

— make any other appropriate order to the effect that the
Commission
under
fulfil
Article 233 EC and, in particular, that the Commission
should re-examine the situation;

obligations

should

its

(Case T-142/01)

(2001/C 245/45)

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay all the costs.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 June 2001 by Organizacio´ n de
Productores de Tu´ nidos Congelados (OPTUC), whose regis-
tered office is in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Ramo´ n
Garcia-Gallardo and Marta Moya.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find the present action admissible;

— annul the provisions adopted by the European Com-
mission reducing the quantities eligible for compensatory
allowances in respect of OPTUC, namely:

(a) Commission Regulation (EC) No 584/2001 of
26 March 2001 amending Regulations
(EC)
No 1103/2000 and (EC) No 1926/2000 providing
for the granting of compensation to producers’
organisations in respect of tuna delivered to the
processing industry from 1 July to 30 September
1999 and from 1 October to 31 December 1999 (1);

(b) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 585/2001 of 26 March 2001 providing for
compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna
delivered to the processing industry between 1 Janu-
ary and 31 March 2000 and the annex thereto (2);

(c) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 808/2001 of 26 April 2001 providing for
compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna
delivered to the processing industry between 1 April
and 30 June 2000 and the annex thereto (3); and

(d) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1163/2001 of 14 June 2001 providing for
compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna
delivered to the processing industry between 1 July
and 30 September 2000 (4).

The applicant is a Spanish frozen tunny producers’ organis-
ation, whose members are associations of tunny freezer vessel
owners specialising in fishing for tuna outside Community
waters. In its capacity as a producers’ organisation, it places
reliance on a Community mechanism, set up in order to ensure
supply to the Community industry and offer the necessary
protection for producers’ income, and which consists in the
granting of compensatory allowances in periods when prices
for the importation of tuna into the Community fall as a result
of price movements in the global market. The system for
calculating such compensation is based on the level of quarterly
deliveries of each producers’ organisation (and therefore of
its members) with respect to the average quantities sold and
delivered by its members during the equivalent quarter in the
three preceding fishing years.

The applicant contests a number of Commission regulations
which lay down the compensatory allowances for the quarters
for the period between 1 July 1999 and 30 September 2000
inasmuch as:

(a)

(b)

they review the amounts originally granted to the appli-
cant by two earlier regulations, repealing them, on
account of the fact that one of its members has now
become member of another producers’ organisation,
whose compensatory allowances have been increased to
the detriment of the applicant;

they modify one of the parameters for calculating the
compensation due to each of the producers’ organis-
ations, acknowledging that the average quantities deliver-
ed by its members in the three preceding years — to be
compared with the level of deliveries in the quarter in
question — might be changed on account of the fact that
one of its members has moved to another producers’
organisation.

The applicant is of the view that the Commission, by making
such changes to the system, and by the way in which it has
done so, has erred in two respects:

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/29

— Lack of legal basis

Pleas in law and main arguments

Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January
1998 (5), which contains the provisions in force concern-
ing compensatory allowances, does not lay down any
specific rule on which the Commission might base itself
in order to ’revise downwards’ the production averages
for the last three fishing years in the event that one of the
members leaves a producers’ organisation.

The applicant took part in Competition COM/TB/99. He
challenges his not being placed on the reserve list for the
recruitment of Administrative Assistants, Senior Administrat-
ive Assistants and Principal Administrative Assistants.

In support of his application, the applicant claims breach of:

— Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations

— the principle of equal treatment;

According to the legislation in force when the contested
regulations were adopted and entered into force, the
applicant legitimately expected to receive higher com-
pensatory allowances. Such expectations were dashed
when the applicable rules were changed under the
contested provisions.

(1) OJ 2001 L 86, p 4.
(2) OJ 2001 L 86, p. 8.
(3) OJ 2001 L 118, p. 12.
(4) OJ 2001 L 159, p. 10.
(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January 1998
laying down detailed rules for granting the compensatory allow-
ance for tuna intended for the processing industry (OJ 1998 L 17,
p. 8).

Action brought on 22 June 2001 by Raymond Maxwell
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-143/01)

(2001/C 245/46)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 June 2001 by Raymond
Maxwell, residing in Lasne (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— the procedural guarantees afforded by the Community

legal system;

— essential procedural requirements and,

in particular,
infringement of
the rules governing the running of
competitions such as those laid down in Article 3(1) of
Annex II to the Staff Regulations and in the ’Guide for
selection boards and committees’;

— the legal framework of the competition notice; and

— the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.

Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-145/01)

(2001/C 245/47)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino,
residing in Lauzun (France), represented by George Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the appointing authority of
10 August 2000 not to acknowledge the occupational
origin of his arthritic symptoms;

— annul the decision of the selection board for competition
COM/TB/99 to award to the applicant for the oral test a
mark too low to allow him to be placed on the reserve
list;

— annul

the consequential decisions to charge to the
applicant the fees and incidental expenses of the doctor
appointed by the applicant to the Medical Committee
and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the third
doctor;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.