Case T-217/01: Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des Migrants de l'Union Européenne against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), migrant, non-governmental organisation, suspension of aid

C 317/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-215/01)

(2001/C 317/66)

(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 September 2001 by Calberson
G.E., established in Paris, represented by Thierry Gallois,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of

compensation:

— Euros 14 290 .61;

— USD 57 859 .56, together with legal interest with
effect from the eighth day after each unpaid invoice
of Calberson G.E.;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present dispute concerns the performance of lot No 4
organised by Commission Regulation No 1815/1999 of
18 August 1999, relating to the supply of skimmed milk
powder to Russia (1). Under the terms of that transaction,
Alpine, the storage firm of the intervention agency, was to
load the goods on the applicant’s means of transport.

According to the applicant, Alpine initially demanded payment
of additional loading costs and the issue of guarantees for the
return of pallets. The Commission agreed that the applicant
was right to refuse payment, whereupon the intervention
agency was asked to intervene with Alpine and to require it to
drop its claim. Alpine then took much longer than planned
when unloading and loading the applicant’s lorries. Those two
difficulties led to a delay in loading the ship chartered by
Calberson, with demurrage arising for the loss of use of the
vessel both at the port of departure and port of destination.

The applicant alleges that the Commission has incurred both
contractual and non-contractual liability.

therefore entitled to hold the Commission liable, as principal
or master, for the acts of those who have acted on its behalf.
Furthermore, Article 9(3) of Regulation No 111/1999 (2) must
be interpreted as meaning that the intervention agency is liable
for the additional costs incurred by the successful tenderer
where those costs are due to a delay in unloading or in the
making available of the goods by the intervention agency or at
the storage location.

In the alternative, even if the Commission is not guarantor of
the acts of intervening parties, the applicant submits that the
conditions for a finding of non-contractual liability of the
Community are satisfied in the present case.

(1) OJ L 220, 20.8.1999, p. 3.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18.1.1999, laying
down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to
the Russian Federation (OJ L 14, 19.1.1999, p. 3).

Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des
Migrants de l’Union Européenne against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-217/01)

(2001/C 317/67)

(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 11 September 2001 by the Forum
des Migrants de L’Union Européenne (the European Union
Migrants Forum), established in Brussels, represented by
Emmanuel Degrez, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision notified to the applicant on 11 July
2001 by the Directorate General for Justice and Home
Affairs of
the Commission terminating the financial
support from the Commission under Article A0-3040 of
the Community budget on the basis of Article 1 of the
general conditions of the grant agreement for the financial
year 2000;

As regards contractual liability, Calberson considers that it
follows from the principles generally accepted in the laws of
all the Member States that the principal is guarantor of the acts
of its agents or those acting on its behalf. The applicant is

— order that the costs and expenses of the case be paid by
the Directorate General for Justice and Home Affairs of
the Commission.

10.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 317/35

Pleas in law and principal arguments

is a non-governmental organisation whose
The applicant
objects are to fight racism and to protect the interests of
immigrants in the European Union. To that end the applicant
received subsidies from the Commission for the year 2000, in
accordance with the agreement entered into by the two parties.
In the challenged decision the Council terminated that financial
aid because of financial irregularities established against the
applicant.

In support of its action the applicant relies on:

— failure to observe the general conditions of the grant

agreement of 24 May 2000;

— failure to respect the rights of the defence in an adminis-
trative case. According to the applicant the disputed
decision was made without the applicant being heard and
was not based on proper reasons;

— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

lenging the decision. The applicant also disputes the stipulation
in the decision that other information and supporting docu-
ments were necessary. According to the applicant it had
submitted all the necessary documents and, if the Commission
required other material, it should have requested it from the
applicant.

Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-220/01)

(2001/C 317/69)

(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 24 September 2001 by Calberson
G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
Gallois, lawyer.

Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire
Monique Remy against the Commission of the European
Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
sation equal to the amounts of the following invoices:

(Case T-218/01)

(2001/C 317/68)

(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 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire
Monique Remy, established at Grasse (France), represented by
Jean-Félix Pupel, lawyer.

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2001)1380
of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial assistance granted
to the applicant by Commission Decision C(93)3185 of
10 November 1993 concerning the grant of aid from the
EAGGF Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.FR.06.027
entitled: ‘Pilot project to demonstrate exploitation of the Iris, a
Mediterranean plant, for the luxury perfume industry and food
flavourings (France, Spain, Greece)’.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

The applicant claims that the decision does not observe the
code of sound administrative conduct because it does not
contain any information concerning the possibilities of chal-

— BRU 0135 963 for DEM 82 991,96 — additional

loading charges;

— BRU 0135 098 for DEM 900 corresponding to fines

paid to the Polish authorities;

— BRU 0135 099 for DEM 6 960 corresponding to

fines paid to the Polish authorities;

— BRU 0135 964 for DEM 16 050 — the cost of
plastic sheeting charged by the store manager;

— order that interest at the legal rate be added to the
compensation from the 8th day after each unpaid invoice;

— order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

This case concerns the execution of Lots 5 and 7 of Regulation
No 1799/1999 on the transport of beef from the intervention
stock in Germany to Russia. Under the terms of that regulation,
the applicant was to provide, at the departure points, services
comprising handling and loading the means of transport. The
applicant invoiced the intervention agency for those services
in compliance with the quotation which had been given to the
applicant by the intervention agency, which had itself received
the quotation from the company managing the store.