Case T-9/03: Action brought on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI — Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, Sardinia, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid system, fuel, regional aid, sericulture

8.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/39

— annul, to the extent necessary, the decision notified by
Note 41280 of the Vice-President of the Commission of
the European Communities, Mr Neil Kinnock, dated
25 September 2002, not to include the applicant’s name
in the list of most deserving officials and not to promote
him to grade B1 in the promotion exercise for 2001
(decision in reply to the applicant’s Claim No R 220/
02, brought for the annulment of the abovementioned
decision of 21 December 2001);

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay such costs as the Court may assess.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the applicant alleges,

In support of his action,
first, an
infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and of
the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant further
alleges an infringement of the principle of respect for the rights
of the defence, an infringement of the principle prohibiting
arbitrary proceedings and of the obligation to state reasons, an
infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of
the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ and, lastly, infringe-
ment of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

Action brought on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils
EURL and Others against the Council of the European
Union

(Case T-5/03)

(2003/C 55/94)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils EURL,
established in Saint-François (Guadeloupe), and 23 other
undertakings, represented by John Sylvanus Dagnon, avocat.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2002/973/EC of 10 December
2002 amending Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December
1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas
departments Commission Regulation (OJ 2002 L 337,
p. 83).

— Declare that Council Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 Decem-
ber 1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas
departments (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 46) is inapplicable.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant companies in the present case object to the
extension by the contested act of the exemption arrangement
from Article 90 of the Treaty in favour of the French overseas
departments.

In support of their arguments, they submit that there is
infringement of Article 299(2) of the Treaty in so far as the
Council adopted the contested measure in breach of the
conditions laid down therein. The preparatory acts leading up
to the contested decision, particularly the report of
the
Commission to the Council dated 24 November 1999, and
points 3 and 5 of the statement of the grounds for the decision
proposal by the Commission to the Council of 23 August
2002 (COM 2002 473 FINAL) show that the prerequisite
conditions for validly authorising an extension of the special
tax arrangements in favour of the overseas departments have
not yet been satisfied.

As regards Decision 89/688 of 22 December 1989, the effects
the
of which were extended by the contested decision,
applicants question its legality on the basis of Article 241 of
the Treaty, on the grounds that the Council was not competent
to authorise it
that that decision
constituted a derogation from Article 95 of the EC Treaty
(now Article 90) and thus could no longer be taken by the
Council after expiry of the two-year time period provided for
in 1957, in the second subparagraph of Article 227(2) of the
EC Treaty.

in 1989. They submit

Action brought on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI —
Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-9/03)

(2003/C 55/95)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI
— Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna,
represented by Giovanni Dore and Fabio Ciulli, lawyers.

C 55/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2003

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, declare unlawful
Commission Decision No 02/229/EC of 13 November
2001, published in the Official Journal on 20 March
2002 and, accordingly, annul it in its entirety or in so far
as necessary;

— in the alternative, order the Commission to compensate
the Sardinian undertakings for the damage suffered
which is quantified as amounting to EUR 1 300 000
(corresponding to the regional contribution which was
not received), together with interest and any readjustment,
to be distributed in proportion to the costs incurred;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, the two largest prestigious associations in the
agriculture sector, contest the decision of the defendant which
found contrary to the common market the aid scheme laid
down in Article 21 of Region of Sardinia Law No 21/2000
which provides for the reduction of production costs linked to
the use of fuels other than methane. The object of that scheme
is to compensate for the extremely high cost of heating fuel
available in Sardinia (diesel). According to the applicants,
the contested decision has prevented Sardinian greenhouse
growers from being placed on an equal footing with those in
other parts of Italy and in the rest of Europe, which would
have made it possible to have free competition in the market.

In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:

— infringement of Article 158 of the Treaty and of Declar-
ation No 30 on Island Regions, annexed to the final act
of the Amsterdam Treaty.

— infringement of Articles 2, 3, 5, 12 and 34 of the Treaty
and failure to apply the principles of equality and
proportionality. The applicants point out in that respect
that the contested decision has rejected an aid scheme
intended to eliminate serious discrimination between
Sardinian greenhouse growers and other Italian and
European greenhouse growers rather than to distort
competition.

— infringement of the rules which govern procedure relating
to State aid, inasmuch as the decision was adopted after
the expiry of the two-month period from the date on
which the appropriate notification was received.

— failure to assess the aid, when examining its compatibility,
in the light of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1)
of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) amending and repealing certain Regulations and
the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture
sector (2000/C28/02) (2).

— failure to apply the Guidelines on National Regional
Aid (3) and the Community guidelines on State aid for
small and medium-sized enterprises (4).

Finally,
the applicants allege failure to state reasons and
misapplication to the present case of the derogation under
Article 87(3) of the Treaty.

(1) OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80.
(2) OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2.
(3) OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9.
(4) OJ 1992 C 213, p. 2.

Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Jean-Pierre Koubi
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-10/03)

(2003/C 55/96)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
13 January 2003 by Jean-Pierre Koubi, resident in Marseille
(France), represented by Katia Manhaeve, Avocat, with an
address for service in Luxembourg. Additional party before the
Office: Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere, S.A. Flabesa.

— infringement of Article 32 in conjunction with Articles 33
to 37 of the Treaty. The applicants claim that the
Commission was not entitled to adopt
that decision
inasmuch as it failed to take the precautions which must
be taken in a sector such as agriculture in which, as a
rule, the competition rules are applied only to the extent
determined by the Council.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
16 October 2002 in Case R 542/2001-4;

— order the Office to pay the costs.