CELEX: C2001/173/64
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-69/01: Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against the European Central Bank

16.6.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/35
The applicant claims that those three special features have                 Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Internationale
resulted in the applicant and operators in a similar position               Fruchtimportgesellschaft Weichert & Co. against the
being granted lower reference quantities than they would have               Council of the European Union and the Commission of
received if the rules governing the organisation of the market                                 the European Communities
had continued to be applied without being changed.
                                                                                                      (Case T-65/01)
                                                                                                     (2001/C 173/63)
The applicant seeks, by way of compensation, to be placed in
the position in which it would have been had its reference
quantity for 1999 been calculated in accordance with the                                        (Language of the case: German)
unchanged rules governing the organisation of the market.
                                                                            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
In support of its claims, it asserts that the Community has                 on 19 March 2001 by Internationale Fruchtimportgesellschaft
infringed Article 6 of Regulation No 1924/95 (2) and the                    Weichert & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represent-
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by failing          ed by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service
to determine the applicant’s rights of access to the market in              in Luxembourg.
1999 in accordance with Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation
No 1442/93. In addition, it maintains that the Community has                The applicant claims that the Court should:
failed, in its formulation of the prohibition of retroactive effect,
to respect the requirement of legal certainty, in that it has               —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
retroactively applied the distribution formula prescribed by                      EUR 3 604 232 together with interest thereon at the rate
Regulation No 2362/98 (3) to reference quantities from the                        of 2,9 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
years 1994 to 1996.                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                                  occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
                                                                                  least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 3 604 232 ;
                                                                            —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
In addition, the special rules applying to operators in the new
                                                                                  applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Member States infringe the prohibition of discrimination laid
                                                                                  suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC;
                                                                                  Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
moreover, no adequate statement of reasons has been given.
                                                                                  contained therein;
                                                                            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
Lastly, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organisation has declared that the system for the allocation of             Pleas in law and main arguments
import licences, as laid down in Regulations Nos 1637/98 and
2362/98, is incompatible in certain essential respects with the             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
law governing the World Trade Organisation. In the applicant’s              advanced in Case T-64/01 (Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie
view, the Community has failed to respect the fact that it is               GmbH v Council and Commission).
bound by that decision.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements
    for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6).         Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1924/95 of 3 August 1995                             Tralli against the European Central Bank
    laying down transitional measures for the application of the tariff
    quota arrangements for imports of bananas as a result of the                                      (Case T-69/01)
    accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 185, p. 24).
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998                                         (2001/C 173/64)
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau
                                                                            (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                            Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte.
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16.6.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the President of the European               —     annul the defendant’s decision, at least in so far as
      Central Bank of 12 March 2001 rejecting the applicant’s                 regards Article 43 of the Normas Forales mentioned in
      complaint;                                                              Article 1(b), (c) and (d) of that decision;
—     annul the defendant’s notice of termination dated 29 No-          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      vember 2000;
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
      between the parties has not been brought to an end by             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the notice of termination dated 29 November 2000;
                                                                        This action has been brought against Commission Decision of
—     declare that the employment relationship existing
                                                                        31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (1), in so far
      between the parties has continued to exist, without being
                                                                        as it finds any aid granted by Spain under Article 43 of
      terminated, after 31 December 2000;
                                                                        Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 on corporation tax
                                                                        adopted by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya; Article 43 of
—     order the defendant to continue, beyond 31 December               Provincial Act 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
      2000, to provide the applicant with employment as a               adopted by the Provincial Council of Guipúzcoa; and Article 43
      security guard in accordance with the contractually agreed        of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
      conditions of employment;                                         adopted by the Provincial Council of Álava, to ECSC steel
                                                                        undertakings established in Spain is incompatible with the
                                                                        common market in coal and steel.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Those fiscal provisions grant a 25 % reduction in respect of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         investments actually made in, inter alia, the creation of branches
                                                                        or permanent establishments abroad as well as the acquisition
                                                                        of shares in foreign companies or the setting-up of subsidiaries
The action is based on the same facts and circumstances as in           directly associated with the export of goods or services.
Cases T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001, p. 61),
T-27/01 Tralli v ECB (not yet published) and T-56/01 Tralli v
ECB (not yet published); the pleas in law and arguments                 The contested decision was adopted following the procedure
advanced are analogous to those put forward in those cases.             laid down in Article 6(5) of Commission Decision
                                                                        No 2496/96/ECSC (‘the Steel Aid Code’).
                                                                        In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that:
                                                                        —     the aid is non-existent, inasmuch as the provisions in
                                                                              issue are horizontal in nature and are of general appli-
                                                                              cation which does not result in any advantage either at
Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histórico                      regional level or with respect to a specific category of
de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against                      undertaking. The aid is non-existent also under the ECSC
         Commission of the European Communities                               Treaty, so that the applicants allege infringement of
                                                                              Article 4(c) of that Treaty, as well as misuse of powers,
                                                                              on the ground that the defendant chose the ECSC Treaty
                         (Case T-77/01)                                       as the basis for its decision.
                        (2001/C 173/65)                                 —     the Commission has failed to state reasons, in particular
                                                                              inasmuch as the contested decision amounts to a change
                                                                              of assessment criterion on the part of the Commission,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                             which has given no reasons for it.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               —     the Commission has failed to state reasons and committed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    an error of assessment, inasmuch as the finding of aid
European Communities on 30 March 2001 by Territorio                           automatically applies to the Normas Forales by the mere
Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others,                  fact that they coincide, so far as their content is concerned,
Spain, represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.                                 with State tax legislation.