Case T-287/04: Action brought on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad Limitada, Oleo Unión, Federación Empresarial de Organizaciones de Productores de Aceite de Oliva, and Unaproliva, Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de Oliva against Council of the European Union
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), aid system, common agricultural policy, common organisation of markets, farmers' income, olive, olive oil, production aid

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/17

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 September 2004

in Case T-254/03: José Manuel Lòpez Cejudo v Commis-
sion of the European Communities (1)

(Officials — Allowance for living conditions — Accommoda-
tion — Articles 5 and 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regula-
tions)

(2004/C 284/35)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-254/03: José Manuel López Cejudo, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brasilia
(Brasil), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers,
against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
J. Currall and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, with an address for service
in Luxembourg) — application for
the
Appointing Authority's decision of 12 June 2002 concerning
the provision of the applicant with accommodation and of the
decision of the Appointing Authority contained in the appli-
cant's salary statement for July 2002 concerning the allowance
for living conditions, together with a claim for default interest
and a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary
damage — the Court of First Instance (single Judge: A.W.H.
Meij); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 September 2004, in which it:

annulment of

Josef Kloh, resident in Eichenried (Germany), represented by R.
Steiling and S. Wienhues, lawyers, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. Duintjer Tebbens and U. Rösslein, with an address
for service in Luxembourg) and Council of the European Union
(Agents: J.-P. Hix and F. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by the
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Braun,
with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for
partial annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the
European Parliament and the Council of 3 October 2002
laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not
intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1) — the
Court of First
J.
Pirrung, President, W. H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2004,
in
which it ordered:

Instance (Second Chamber), composed of

1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of
the Landwirtschaftskammer Vorarlberg and Messrs Wohlgenannt
and Taferner.

3. The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of the Euro-

pean Parliament and the Council.

4. The Commission shall bear its own costs.

5. The Landwirtschaftskammer Vorarlberg and Messrs Wohlgenannt
and Taferner, the parties making applications to intervene, shall
bear their own costs.

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

(1) OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 May 2004 (1)

in Case T-391/02, Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und
Speiseresteverwertung eV, Josef Kloh v European Parlia-
ment and Council of the European Union

annulment — Regulation (EC) No
(Application for
1774/2002 — Health rules concerning animal by-products
not intended for human consumption — Manifest inadmissi-
bility)

(2004/C 284/36)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-391/02, Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und
Speiseresteverwertung eV, established in Bochum (Germany),

Action brought on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad
Limitada, Oleo Unión, Federación Empresarial de Organi-
zaciones de Productores de Aceite de Oliva, and Unapro-
liva, Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de
Oliva against Council of the European Union

(Case T-287/04)

(2004/C 284/37)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 July 2004 by Lorte, Sociedad Limitada,
having its registered office in Estepa, Oleo Unión, Federación
Empresarial de Organizaciones de Productores de Aceite de
Oliva, having its registered office in Sevilla and Unaproliva,
Unión de organizaciones de productores de Aceite de Oliva,
having its registered office in Jaén (all in Spain), represented by
Rafael Illescas Ortiz, of the Madrid Bar.

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.