Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2002 in Case T-197/01: Groupement d'intérêt de produits agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 — Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2002-09-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), agricultural cooperative, implementing Regulation, restriction on competition, tropical fruit

28.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 233/23

of the European Communities (Agents: N. Niejahr, K. Fitch
and B. Wägenbaur) — application for partial annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2001 of 11 May 2001
concerning the authorisation of new additive uses, new
additive preparations, the prolongation of provisional author-
isations and the ten year authorisation of an additive in
feedingstuffs (OJ 2001 L 130, p. 25) — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 June 2002, the operative part of which
provides as follows:

1.

2.

There is no need to rule in the present action.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

( 1) OJ 2001 C 289 of 13.10.2001.

Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet
SA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-177/02)

(2002/C 233/44)

(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 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-
Vezinhet SA, established in Cavaillon (France), represented by
Béatrice Favarel-Veidig, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 June 2002

Malagutti-Vezinhet:

— order the Commission to pay the following amounts to

The applicant claims that the Court should:

in Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits
agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001
— Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest
inadmissibility)

(2002/C 233/43)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits agricoles
de la Martinique (GIPAM), whose registered office is at Ducos
(France), represented by A. Lorang, P. Leroyer Gravet and
H. Mazingue, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Bordes and L. Visaggio) — application for annul-
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation
(EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing
bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6) — the
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
Court of First
J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 June 2002,
in which it:

1.

2.

dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.

— the sum of FRF 222 540,00 (EUR 33 926,00) as
compensation for loss incurred by that company;

— the sum of FRF 1 943 413,56 (EUR 296 271,48) as
compensation for loss of profits in the British
market; if the Court of First Instance considers the
claim for loss of profits to be insufficiently proven,
it is requested to award the applicant the aforemen-
tioned sum in respect of the loss of a chance to
retain its previously established levels of business;

— the sum of FRF 2 013 455,16 (EUR 306 949,26) as
compensation for harm caused to the company’s
reputation with European and, in particular, British
distributors.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In September 2001,

The applicant exports fruit and vegetables into, inter alia, the
English market.
the Icelandic health
authorities informed the Commission of the existence of
pesticide residues in excess of the prescribed maximum level.
On the basis of that information, the Commission sent a
notification,
in the framework of the rapid alert system,
concerning dicofol residues in apples from France via the
Netherlands. In a second notification, and subsequent notifi-
cations, the applicant was expressly named as the exporter.

The applicant claims that, by taking that action, the Com-
mission acted wrongfully, thereby causing the applicant to
suffer damage.