CELEX: C2001/317/67
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-217/01: Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des Migrants de l'Union Européenne against the Commission of the European Communities

C 317/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.                     therefore entitled to hold the Commission liable, as principal
     against Commission of the European Communities                       or master, for the acts of those who have acted on its behalf.
                                                                          Furthermore, Article 9(3) of Regulation No 111/1999 (2) must
                                                                          be interpreted as meaning that the intervention agency is liable
                         (Case T-215/01)                                  for the additional costs incurred by the successful tenderer
                                                                          where those costs are due to a delay in unloading or in the
                         (2001/C 317/66)                                  making available of the goods by the intervention agency or at
                                                                          the storage location.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In the alternative, even if the Commission is not guarantor of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 the acts of intervening parties, the applicant submits that the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                conditions for a finding of non-contractual liability of the
European Communities on 20 September 2001 by Calberson                    Community are satisfied in the present case.
G.E., established in Paris, represented by Thierry Gallois,
lawyer.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 220, 20.8.1999, p. 3.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18.1.1999, laying
                                                                              down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                              No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of                  the Russian Federation (OJ L 14, 19.1.1999, p. 3).
      compensation:
      —     Euros 14 290 .61;
      —     USD 57 859 .56, together with legal interest with
            effect from the eighth day after each unpaid invoice
            of Calberson G.E.;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des
                                                                          Migrants de l’Union Européenne against the Commission
                                                                                           of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (Case T-217/01)
The present dispute concerns the performance of lot No 4                                           (2001/C 317/67)
organised by Commission Regulation No 1815/1999 of
18 August 1999, relating to the supply of skimmed milk
powder to Russia (1). Under the terms of that transaction,                                    (Language of the case: French)
Alpine, the storage firm of the intervention agency, was to
load the goods on the applicant’s means of transport.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
According to the applicant, Alpine initially demanded payment             European Communities on 11 September 2001 by the Forum
of additional loading costs and the issue of guarantees for the           des Migrants de L’Union Européenne (the European Union
return of pallets. The Commission agreed that the applicant               Migrants Forum), established in Brussels, represented by
was right to refuse payment, whereupon the intervention                   Emmanuel Degrez, lawyer.
agency was asked to intervene with Alpine and to require it to
drop its claim. Alpine then took much longer than planned
when unloading and loading the applicant’s lorries. Those two             The applicant claims that the Court should:
difficulties led to a delay in loading the ship chartered by
Calberson, with demurrage arising for the loss of use of the              —     annul the decision notified to the applicant on 11 July
vessel both at the port of departure and port of destination.                   2001 by the Directorate General for Justice and Home
                                                                                Affairs of the Commission terminating the financial
                                                                                support from the Commission under Article A0-3040 of
The applicant alleges that the Commission has incurred both
                                                                                the Community budget on the basis of Article 1 of the
contractual and non-contractual liability.
                                                                                general conditions of the grant agreement for the financial
                                                                                year 2000;
As regards contractual liability, Calberson considers that it
follows from the principles generally accepted in the laws of             —     order that the costs and expenses of the case be paid by
all the Member States that the principal is guarantor of the acts               the Directorate General for Justice and Home Affairs of
of its agents or those acting on its behalf. The applicant is                   the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/35
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      lenging the decision. The applicant also disputes the stipulation
                                                                          in the decision that other information and supporting docu-
                                                                          ments were necessary. According to the applicant it had
The applicant is a non-governmental organisation whose                    submitted all the necessary documents and, if the Commission
objects are to fight racism and to protect the interests of               required other material, it should have requested it from the
immigrants in the European Union. To that end the applicant               applicant.
received subsidies from the Commission for the year 2000, in
accordance with the agreement entered into by the two parties.
In the challenged decision the Council terminated that financial
aid because of financial irregularities established against the
applicant.
In support of its action the applicant relies on:                         Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     failure to observe the general conditions of the grant
      agreement of 24 May 2000;                                                                    (Case T-220/01)
—     failure to respect the rights of the defence in an adminis-
                                                                                                   (2001/C 317/69)
      trative case. According to the applicant the disputed
      decision was made without the applicant being heard and
      was not based on proper reasons;                                                        (Language of the case: French)
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Calberson
                                                                          G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
                                                                          Gallois, lawyer.
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Monique Remy against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                    —     order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
                                                                                sation equal to the amounts of the following invoices:
                          (Case T-218/01)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 963 for DEM 82 991,96 — additional
                                                                                      loading charges;
                          (2001/C 317/68)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 098 for DEM 900 corresponding to fines
                    (Language of the case: French)                                    paid to the Polish authorities;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       —     BRU 0135 099 for DEM 6 960 corresponding to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                            fines paid to the Polish authorities;
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire
Monique Remy, established at Grasse (France), represented by                    —     BRU 0135 964 for DEM 16 050 — the cost of
Jean-Félix Pupel, lawyer.                                                             plastic sheeting charged by the store manager;
                                                                          —     order that interest at the legal rate be added to the
The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2001)1380                        compensation from the 8th day after each unpaid invoice;
of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial assistance granted
to the applicant by Commission Decision C(93)3185 of                      —     order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.
10 November 1993 concerning the grant of aid from the
EAGGF Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.FR.06.027
entitled: ‘Pilot project to demonstrate exploitation of the Iris, a       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Mediterranean plant, for the luxury perfume industry and food
flavourings (France, Spain, Greece)’.                                     This case concerns the execution of Lots 5 and 7 of Regulation
                                                                          No 1799/1999 on the transport of beef from the intervention
                                                                          stock in Germany to Russia. Under the terms of that regulation,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      the applicant was to provide, at the departure points, services
                                                                          comprising handling and loading the means of transport. The
                                                                          applicant invoiced the intervention agency for those services
The applicant claims that the decision does not observe the               in compliance with the quotation which had been given to the
code of sound administrative conduct because it does not                  applicant by the intervention agency, which had itself received
contain any information concerning the possibilities of chal-             the quotation from the company managing the store.