Case T-285/03: Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and 110 others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fruit vegetable, processed foodstuff, production aid

C 251/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

Regulations) and breach of the principle of equality of treat-
ment and non-discrimination.

Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and
110 others against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-285/03)

(2003/C 251/34)

(Language of the case: French)

the Commission of

the European
An action against
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 18 August 2003 by the
company Agraz SA and 110 other companies, represented
by J.-L. da Cruz Vilaça, R. Oliveira, M.-J. Melícias and
D. Choussy, laywers.

for

the marketing

year 2000/2001,

the
Specifically,
Commission took as its basis for calculating production aid
the export prices of tomatoes from the United States, Israel
and Turkey. It follows that the defendant did not take into
account the export prices of China, although in 1999 it was
the world's second largest producer of tomatoes. That basis for
calculation significantly reduced production aid.

their claims,

In support of
the
conditions in the Bergadem case-law are fulfilled in the present
case.

the applicants argue that

that

The applicants claim that that omission infringes the relevant
basic regulation (2),
the regulation confers rights on
individuals and that the powers of the Commission when
Regulation No 1519/2000 was adopted were extremely lim-
ited, consisting merely in identifying the reference countries
for the purposes of calculating the amount of the aid.

Finally,
the Commission infringed the principles of good
administration and legitimate expectations by failing to make
the effort needed to learn the Chinese prices and by refusing,
once it was notified of those prices, to amend the regulation.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(1) OJ L 174 of 13.7.2000, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 29.

— order the defendant to pay each applicant company the
balance of the production aid together with interest at a
rate fixed by the Court of First Instance as from 12 July
2000 (or, in the alternative, as from 13 July 2000 or,
further in the alternative, as from 16 July 2000) and until
the actual day of payment;

Action brought on 15 August 2003 by The Gillette
Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

— order the Commission to pay the costs, including those

incurred by the applicants.

(Case T-286/03)

(2003/C 251/35)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

The present application seeks recognition of the extra-contrac-
tual liability of the Community arising from the damage alleg-
edly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used
to calculate the amount of production aid for processed
tomato products for the marketing year 2000/2001 under
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July
2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum
price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato
products (1).

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
the European Communities on
Court of First Instance of
15 August 2003 by The Gillette Company, Boston (USA),
represented by L. Kouker,
lawyer. Wilkinson Sword GmbH,
Solingen (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.