Case T-299/04: Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Abdelghani Selmani against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Algeria, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Ireland, action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, fight against crime, foreign national, refugee, terrorism

C 284/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.11.2004

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Council Regulations

(EC) Nos 864/2004 and
865/2004 of 29 April 2004; in particular, as regards Regu-
lation No 864/2004, the Court should annul the following
provisions:

i. Article 1(7) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph in
Article 37(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29
September 2003;

ii. Article 1(11) in so far as it adds a new subparagraph to
paragraph 2 of Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No
1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270);

iii. Article 1(20) insofar as, when inserting a new Chapter
10b – ‘Aid for olive groves’– into Regulation (EC) No
1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 270) it
adds a new Article 110h and,
in particular, Article
1(20)(b) of the abovementioned Article 110h;

iv. the annex, insofar as it amends Annex VI to Regulation
(EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L
the
270) adding four new rows and,
second such new row concerning olive oil insofar as it
refers to Article 5 of Regulation 136/66/CEE – Aid for
olive oil production – which provides for a national
guaranteed amount (NGA) for Spain of 760 027 tons;

in particular,

— as regards Regulation 865/2004 the Court should annul the

following provision:

— Article 22 insofar as it repeals Article 5(1) of Regulation
(EEC) No 1638/98 so far as concerns, exclusively, the
second and third subparagraphs thereof and only to the
extent
they amount to fundamental criteria for
fixing the aid for income of oil producers under the
new scheme based on Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.

that

Pleas in law and main arguments:

inter alia,

The applicants claim that the contested regulations entail the
introduction into the common agricultural policy of a new aid
scheme for olive oil and table olive producers as well as a new
common organisation of the markets in such products, dero-
gating from,
the long-established Regulation No
136/66/EEC of the Council of 22 September 1966 on the
establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils
and fats. Unlike the longstanding mechanism for aid for
production, the new system established by the contested regula-
tions removes direct aid to producers and introduces a system
of single payments, which means, for the olive oil sector, from
2006, a move from a policy of supporting prices and produc-
tion to a new policy of support for the income of olive produ-
cers.

under the new aid scheme, as a basic reference for the quantifi-
cation of the new aid which replaces the aid to production
which has been repealed.

In support of their claims, the applicants allege:

— breach of the principle of legal expectations. The applicants
state,
first, that the affected producers were particularly
disappointed in the expectations created by the common
organisation of the market which has now been reformed
inasmuch as those affected are oil producers which, in view
of the circumstances in the sector, made decisions regarding
investment decisions in respect of very long-term income
forecasts and,
that the reference marketing
years for the new aid (from 1999/2000 to 2002/2003)
happen to be periods in which oil producers who planted a
crop in 1998 do not have a significant harvest.

furthermore,

— misuse of powers. Reliance is placed, in particular, in that
regard, on the existence of an undertaking obtained by the
Commission and the Council in 1998, and again in 2001,
concerning the obtention by them of reliable information
on the olive oil sector as a condition prior to its reform, as
well as the essential need to take into account developments
in production and the future of olive-growing in Spain and
Portugal. None the less, according to the applicants, reliable
information regarding oil production in Spain could already
have been provided by the Commission itself to the Interna-
tional Oil Council, so that neither the Commission nor the
Council could have been unaware of it.

— failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons,

enshrined in Article 253 of the EC Treaty.

— breach of

the principle of non-discrimination of Com-
munity producers, as laid down in the first paragraph of
Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Abdelghani Selmani
the European Union and the
against

the Council of
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-299/04)

(2004/C 284/38)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicants take the view that the abovementioned reform
is not based on proper information and sectorial analysis, as
indicated by the maintenance of the 760 027 tons of olive oil
as, previously, a national guaranteed amount (NGA) and now,

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7
July 2004 by Abdelghani Selmani, Dublin, Ireland, represented
by Mr C. Ó Briain Solicitor.

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/19

The applicant claims that the Court should:

considered necessary could not be determined by each indivi-
dual Member State.

— Annul Article

2 of Council Regulation

(EC) No
2580/2001 (1) as well as Article 1 of Council Decision
2004/306/EC (2) insofar as they apply, or purport to apply,
to the applicant;

— Annul all Council decisions made on foot of Regulation
2580/2001 having like effect to Decision 2004/306 insofar
as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

— If necessary, annul Article 2 of 2001/931/CFSP (3), Article 1
of Council Common Position 2004/500/CFSP (4) as well as
all Council Common Positions adopted on the foot of
in all cases insofar as they
Common Position 2001/931,
apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

— In the alternative, declare that the above measures are void,
insofar as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

— Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Council Common Position 2001/931/CSFP was adopted with
the stated purpose of implementing Resolution 1373 (2001) of
the Security Council of the United Nations, calling on all signa-
tory states to prevent the financing of terrorist acts by, inter
alia, freezing the funds and resources of all persons who may
be involved in such acts. Regulation 2580/2001 was adopted
in order to implement this common position. Article 2 makes
provision for the freezing of assets belonging to persons
involved in terrorist activity, to be established by the Council in
accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 2. Council Decision
2004/306 provides such a list and includes the name of the
applicant, an Algerian national. As a result, the applicant's
assets in Ireland, where he resides having been granted refugee
status, were frozen.

In support of his application to annul the contested measures
the applicant submits that the Council was not competent,
under Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty, to adopt
Article 2 of Regulation 2580/2001 and Article 1 of Decision
2004/306 and that both the Council and the Commission
misused their powers under
those articles. The applicant
further contends that the list of names appearing in Decision
2004/306 was not established in accordance with the provi-
sions laid down in Article 1 paragraph 4 of Common Position
2001/931. The applicant also claims that the Council had no
power under Articles 15 and 34 EU to adopt Common Posi-
tions 2001/931 and 2004/500 which, according to the appli-
cant, violate these articles and the EC Treaty in general.

The applicant also submits that the contested measures violate
fundamental principles of Community law, in particular subsi-
diarity, proportionality and respect
for fundamental human
rights. He further submits that the Council and the Commission
have failed to state adequate reasons as to why the measures

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on
specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
entities with a view to combating terrorism O J L 344, 28.12.2001,
p. 70.

(2) Council Decision of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC, OJ L 99,
3.4.2004, p. 28.

(3) Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application
of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p.
93.

(4) Council Common Position 2004/500/CFSP of 17 May 2004
updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of
specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Posi-
tion 2004/309/CFSP.

Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer
against the European Parliament

(Case T-330/04)

(2004/C 284/39)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9
August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer of Tübingen (Germany),
represented by Matthias Bauer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the defendant infringed the rights of the appli-
cant in connection with Competition PE/96/A (Administra-
tors);

— admit the applicant to the second stage of a competition

comparable with Competition PE/96/A;

— in the alternative, order the defendant to pay appropriate
compensation, equivalent to at least one month's net salary.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In July 2002, the applicant applied for Competition PE/96/A of
the European Parliament. He stated in the application form that
he was handicapped, in that his vision is reduced to two per
cent of normal. According to the applicant, he was not allowed
to write the test with a computer, being told that the examina-
tion conditions made no provision for compensating handi-
capped participants, and he was not given the extension of
time which he requested.