Case T-276/03: Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola "Le Canne" srl against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, balance of payments assistance, company modernisation, fish farming

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/25

The present action is directed against Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1065/97 of 12 June 1997 supplementing the Annex
to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-
graphical
indications and designations of origin under the
procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 (1), insofar as it concerns the rules governing the
use of the PGI ‘Prociutto di Norcia’ adopted by the Commission.

The applicant points out, first and foremost, that Regulation
No 1065/97 contains no reference to the rules which the
Commission adopted and which govern the production of
‘Prosciutto di Norcia’. As regards raw materials, the rules
merely provide, in Article 3, that the meat must come from
farms rearing cross-bred selected white race pigs, with no
reference to where such farms must be situated. The rules were
published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic.

The national authorities competent in the matter have, how-
ever, enjoined the company which prepares and ages the
prosciutto to halt any processing of meat from farms outside
Italy on the basis that the text of the scheme approved by the
Commission for the PGI in question lays down a similar
prohibition.

In support of its claim, the applicant argues:

— Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
ucts and foodstuffs (2);

Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola
‘Le Canne’ srl against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-276/03)

(2003/C 239/46)

(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 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agrico-
la ‘Le Canne’ srl, represented by G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty,
that, by failing to adopt all the measures and to take all
the steps required to comply with the judgment of
5 March 2002 (Case T-241/00) of the Court of First
Instance, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Community law;

— order the Commission to pay damages which the appli-
cant alleges it has sustained in a sum not less than the
unpaid amount of the subsidy, together with interest at
the rate charged to the applicant by the banking system
from the date of the last part payment of the subsidy to
the date when the balance due is paid;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty on
the freedom of imports and of the rules for the protection
of the functioning of the internal market (Articles 3 and
4 of the Treaty);

Pleas in law and main arguments

— breach of the principles of free competition and breach
of the prohibition on introducing measures which favour
national undertakings;

— the existence of defects in the inquiry procedure which

led the Commission to approve the rules.

( 1) OJ L 156 of 13.6.1997, p. 5.
( 2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

The present action was brought because of a reduction in the
amount of the contribution paid by the Community to help
finance various works of modernisation and organisation of
the applicant’s fish farms. The reduction was annulled by
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-10/98 P (1). By
judgment of 5 March 2002 (2) a further decision reducing the
amount of the contribution was annulled on the ground that
the Commission had failed to assess whether the project
actually carried out could be regarded as productive and
consistent with initial plans.

The applicant asserts that after the second judgment had
acquired the authority of a final decision the Commission
endeavoured to conduct the necessary assessment, making an
inspection in loco. However, after making its inspection on 16
and 17 September 2002 the Commission failed to express a
position and deferred sine dine payment of the balance of the
subsidy.

C 239/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.10.2003

The applicant argues in this connection that, in this case, the
facts of the dispute, which dates back to 1995, are brought
before the Community court for a third time, yet the Com-
mission has still not properly completed what it ought to have
done in 1995, namely to conduct an assessment of whether
ascertained variations from the object, structure and purpose
of the original subsidised project are in conformity.

( 1) ECR I-6831.
( 2) Case T-241/00 ECR II-1251.

Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde
Langarica against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-283/03)

(2003/C 239/47)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde
Langarica, residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón
García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of 8 May 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
complaint seeking formal and definitive annulment of
the decision withdrawing her entitlement under the
Staff Regulations to the expatriation allowance and
confirmation of her entitlement to that allowance and
also to other related allowances; and

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision whereby the
appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint seeking
formal and definitive annulment of the decision refusing her
entitlement under the Staff Regulations to the expatriation
allowance and confirmation of her entitlement to that allow-
ance, together with other related allowances, such as, specifi-
cally, the allowance for the costs of installation at her present
place of work.

The applicant states in that regard that the contested decision
replaces another decision which the Court of First Instance
the European Communities annulled by judgment of
of
20 September 2001 (1).

In support of here claims, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas:

— Breach of the rights of defence, given the absence of a

complete file.

in the assessment of

— Manifest error in the assessment of the facts and, in
particular,
the place of main
occupation or habitual residence during the reference
period. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the
Commission ignored the fact that the applicant’s stay in
Brussels never exceeded the reference period and, further
in the alternative, that it did not apply the ‘work done for
another State’ exception in Article 4 of Annex VII to the
Staff Regulations.

(1) Case T-344/99 Recalde Langarica v Commission [2001] ECR-SC

IA-183; II-833).

Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-287/03)

(2003/C 239/48)

(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 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl,
represented by M.A. Calabrese.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s letter of 30 April 2002 D/52107,
COMP/G1/D(02)400 PI/cpb, of which the applicant has
not had sight, whereby the Commission consulted the
Italian authorities, inviting them to express their assent
or dissent to the release to a party other than the applicant
of the documents of which the applicant has requested
copies;