Case T-259/01: Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), delivery, food aid, payment, sunflower seed oil

C 17/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.1.2002

Grounds of claim:

interpretation

Incorrect
of
Article 7 of Regulation 40/94 (1)
and unjust refusal of evidence
filed by the Applicant after the
filing of the Application.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Norman Pyres
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-256/01)

(2002/C 17/30)

(Language of the case: French)

In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following
pleas:

— infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
munities.

— disregard for the interests of the service.

— the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of

assessment.

— breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

The applicant states in that regard that it is for the institution
to justify on objective grounds the condition relating to age
which it sets in its recruitment notices, such justification to be
objective and reasonable, to be in pursuit of a legitimate
interest and to observe the requirements of proportionality.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Noramn
Pyres, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersan-
den and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 1 December 2000 of the Selection
Board in competition COM/R/A/14/2000, the decision of
4 December 2000 of the Selection Board in competition
COM/R/A/10/2000 and the decision of 7 December 2000
of the Selection Board in competition COM/R/A/07/2000
refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the selection
procedure;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste —
Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-259/01)

(2002/C 17/31)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First
Instance on
16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional,
S.A., established in Algés, Portugal, represented by the lawyers
Jorge Monteiro dos Santos, Ana Cristina Vasconcelos, Jorge de
Mendia, Sandra Sousa de Almeida and Anto´ nio Texeira de
Almeida, of Lisbon.

The applicant opposes the decision of the appointing authority
to exclude him from the selection procedure for COM/
R/A/07/2000, COM/R/A/10/2000 and COM/R/A/14/2000,
organised by the Research Directorate General, on the ground
that he did not meet the condition as to age-limit prescribed
therein.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant
the sum of EUR 61 222 for goods duly delivered but not
yet paid for.

19.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 17/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 8 January 1998 Nutrinveste concluded with the Com-
mission a contract for the supply of 1 800 tonnes of sunflower
oil.

The goods were to be supplied as part of an aid programme
carried out under the undermentioned regulations:

— Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 (1) of 8 July

1987;

— Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2608/97 (2) of

22 December 1997.

The goods were intended for a number of operations forming
part of the 1995 and 1996 aid programmes. They were
intended for Angola and the shipment was on a ‘free-at-
destination’ basis, under Articles 1 and 15 of Regulation No
2200/87.

Being required to make arrangements for transport and
insurance of the goods as far as their destination, Nutrinveste
concluded a contract of carriage with Orey — Comércio e
Navegaça˜o, Lda.

Before being shipped, the goods were inspected by Socotec
International Inspection, to which the European Commission
entrusted that task, on the basis of Articles 10 and 16 of
Regulation No 2200/87, a provisional certificate of conformity
having been issued to the effect that no irregularity had been
found regarding quantities.

Socotec International Inspection examined the goods at the
warehouses in the country of destination in accordance with
Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2200/87, and discovered a
number of irregularities.

On the basis of the report drawn up by the above firm, the
European Commission took the view that Nutrinveste had not
fully complied with the supply contract, not having supplied
the quantity that
it had undertaken to supply, and the
Commission therefore reduced the sum payable by EUR
83 320. It also applied a penalty for late delivery and associated
irregularities in the sum of EUR 7 916.

Also, the insurance company paid by way of compensation
the sum of PTE 6 116 746 (EUR 30 510.5).

As a result, Nutrinveste incurred a loss of EUR 61 226
(53 310 in respect of the unpaid part of the price and 7 916 for
the penalty imposed on it).

Nutrinveste contends that it performed the contract in its
entirety and that the Commission has refused to pay part of
the price of the goods at issue without having shown that the
applicant was responsible for the irregularities and without
having giving reasons for its position.

Finally, in the event of its being considered that, having regard
to the place of performance and the rules governing risks, the
European Commission does not have to prove the applicant’s
liability for the irregularities in order to justify its refusal to
pay, the applicant contends that, in the circumstances of this
case, the apportionment of the risk under the contract placed
an excessive burden upon it.

The vessels arrived on the scheduled dates but clearance
through customs took a long time for various reasons.

(1) OJ 1987 L 204, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1997 L 351, p. 44.