Case T-177/02: Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-09-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), damage, export, health control, information, pesticide residue, pip 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.

C 233/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.9.2002

The applicant considers that the Commission acted wrongfully
in so far as it failed to observe the procedure laid down in
Directive 92/59. (1) In that regard, the applicant submits that
the Commission did not establish that the apples tested had
originated from the applicant. In addition, there was no serious
and immediate risk. The applicant states that the checks carried
out established only that there was an impermissible level of
dicofol. The applicant also claims that, by failing to consult
the parties concerned as quickly as possible, the Commission
acted in breach of Article 7(2) of Directive 92/59.

The damage suffered by the applicant consists of loss sustained
in the English market, loss of profit, and harm to its reputation.
The applicant states that in the preceding year it had worked
hard to break into the English market and build up a
reputation. Its efforts have now been rendered useless. The
damage was evidently caused by the Commission’s wrongful
conduct since, following the notifications under the rapid alert
system,
the applicant’s sales in the English market were
brought to an end.

— annul Mr Neil Kinnock’s letter of 22 November 2001
addressed to the presidents of all
the trade unions
informing them of his decision to ask the Commission to
terminate the 1974 framework agreement on 5 December
2001;

— annul Mr Erik Halskov’s decision No 47623 of 6 Decem-
ber 2001 refusing to grant the applicant leave to attend,
on a mission basis, the meeting of 7 December 2001 on
the ‘Comprehensive Package of Proposed Amendments
to the Statute’;

— rule on costs, expenses and fees and order the European

Commission to pay them.

( 1) Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product

safety (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-191/02)

(2002/C 233/45)

(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 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,
residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the College of Commissioners of
5 December 2001 by which the agreement of 20 Septem-
ber 1974 on relations between the Commission and trade
unions/staff organisations is terminated with effect from
5 December 2001;

trade union is deprived of all or some of

By the present action, the applicant is contesting, in particular,
the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2001 whereby,
according to the applicant and in so far as the A&D (Action &
its
Défense)
rights arising from its adhesion to the framework agreement
governing relations between the Commission and trade
unions/staff organisations,
in particular recognition of its
representativity, participation in meetings at all levels and the
distribution of resources:

— the agreement on relations between the Commission and
trade unions/staff organisations of 20 September 1974 is
terminated with effect from 5 December 2001;

— the Operational Rules on levels of consultation, the
consultation body and related procedures (SEC (2000)
2086/3) agreed between the Commission and the
majority of the trade unions/staff organisations on 19 Jan-
uary 2000 are re-adopted;

— the agreement of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be
made available to the Central Committee and local staff
committees and the trade unions/staff organisations
(SEC(2001)955/5) is ratified;

— the provisions on strikes laid down in Annex 1 to the

1974 framework agreement are ratified;