Case T-14/05: Action brought on 12 January 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), agricultural quota, application of the law, farm prices, regulation of agricultural production, tobacco

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/25

Action brought on 12 January 2005 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-14/05)

(2005/C 69/44)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 January 2005 by the Italian
Republic, represented by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello
Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1809/2004 is

void ab initio;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Commission Regulation (EC) No
1809/2004 of 18 October 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No
2848/98 laying down detailed rules for the application of the
quota buy-back programme in the raw tobacco sector (OJ L
318 of 19.10.2004) (‘the contested regulation’). The contested
regulation adds to Article 36(1) of Regulation No 2848/98 a
subparagraph which provides for a buy-back price for tobacco
quotas relating to the 2004 harvest fixed at an amount equal to
40 % of the premium and states that that amount is to be paid
before 31 May 2005.

The Italian Government takes the view that the contested regu-
lation infringes Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (1) (and
in particular Article 14a thereof) and that there is infringement
of an essential procedural requirement and misuse of powers.

In particular, the setting of a quota buy-back price for quotas
bought back in respect of the 2004 harvest, which is, more-
over, particularly high,
identical and undifferentiated for all
producers and for all qualities of tobacco varieties, payable
almost
in the Italian
Government's view, contrary to Article 14a of Council Regu-
lation No 2075/92, as amended, inter alia, by Regulation No
1636/98.

immediately in a single payment,

is,

the single payment scheme,

minimum level of aid which the farmer can receive under the
direct payment scheme set up by Council Regulation (EC) No
1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 … Moreover, with a view
the
to the implementation of
payment period for the buy-back price should be kept to a
minimum.’ In that regard,
it contends that the provisions of
Regulation No 2075/92 were not repealed for the year under
consideration (or for 2005) and that the Commission was not
therefore authorised to use for the level of the buy-back price a
legal basis completely different from the one which it should
have adhered to in performing the operation or to pursue
objectives completely different
from and contrary to those
which, on the basis of Council Regulation No 2075/92, should
have justified its adoption.

The Italian Government further alleges a failure to give reasons
for the contested measure, both in respect of the setting of a
buy-back price which is the same for all producers and takes
no account of the individual varieties of tobacco produced and
in respect of the quantification of the price at an amount equal
to 40 % of the premium, as well as a conflict between the
provisions of Article 1 of the contested regulation, the state-
ments contained in its third recital and the reasons clearly
stated in its second recital.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the
common organization of the market in raw tobacco (OJ L 215 of
30.07.1992, p. 70).

Action brought on 19 January 2005 by IMI plc,
Kynoch Ltd. and Yorkshire Copper Tube against

IMI
the

Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-18/05)

(2005/C 69/45)

(Language of the case: English)

The Italian Government also considers that the setting of the
contested level of the buy-back price cannot be regarded as
being justified, and certainly cannot be justified by the reasons
stated in the third recital in the preamble to the contested regu-
lation, according to which: ‘For quotas under the 2004 harvest,
the
the buy-back price should be fixed on the basis of

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 January 2005 by IMI plc, estab-
IMI Kynoch Ltd.,
lished in Birmingham (United Kingdom),
established in Birmingham (United Kingdom) and Yorkshire
Copper Tube, established in Liverpool (United Kingdom), repre-
sented by M. Struys and D. Arts, lawyers.