CELEX: C1998/094/69
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Comunities (Case T-308/97)

C 94/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
    application,
Ð order the Council and/or Commission to pay the
    applicant's costs.                                             Action brought on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S.
                                                                   Rowlands and E. H. S. Rowlands against the Council of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                                           Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-307/97)
The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect                                (98/C 94/68)
to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
producer, has not been compensated for the absence of                             (Language of the case: English)
quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the                  the Commission of the European Communities was
applicant are the same as those raised in Case T-304/97            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Hilsdon v. Council and Commission.                                 Communities on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S. Rowlands
                                                                   and E. H. S. Rowlands, represented by Rory Hutchings,
                                                                   Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,
                                                                   Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis against the Council             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
of the European Union and the Commission of the                        in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-306/97)                             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
                         (98/C 94/67)                                  applicant's costs.
               (Language of the case: English)                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                   the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                   and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
Communities on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
                                                                   introduction of SLOM quota.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis, represented by Rory
Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New
Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                            The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
    applicant's costs.                                             and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European
                                                                    Union and the Commission of the European Comunities
                                                                                          (Case T-308/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                            (98/C 94/69)
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        the Commission of the European Communities was
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/27
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
and Mrs M. Lewis, represented by Rory Hutchings,
Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,                The applicant, the company which owns the vessel Albor
Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                                    Uno, alleges that the defendant failed to use its exclusive
                                                                   powers in the fisheries sector when the aforementioned
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        vessel was seized, and subsequently arrested, on 16 July
                                                                   1997 by a Moroccan patrol vessel on the ground that it
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages              was fishing 4,5 nautical miles off the Moroccan coast. The
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,                 applicant denies this and asserts that the vessel was
                                                                   13 miles offshore when it was seized. Moreover, the
                                                                   limited measures which the Commission took merely
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               consisted of visiting the vessel, drawing up an expert
    applicant's costs.                                             report and replying to a fax from the applicant. Although
                                                                   it is true that the Commission called a meeting of the EU-
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Morocco Joint Committee, whose task it is to ensure the
                                                                   observance of fishing agreements, Morocco refused
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of              systematically to attend that meeting. The relase of the
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I          vessel was achieved after difficult negotiations undertaken
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been               directly and at personal level between the shipowner and
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  the relevant Moroccan authorities with no official
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        participation at any time, either on the part of the Spanish
                                                                   or Community authorities.
The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
Commission.                                                        In the applicant's view, the defendant's failure to act was
                                                                   detrimental to the right to a fair hearing of a Community
                                                                   undertaking and vessel and deprived them of protection
                                                                   since the only way of establishing the facts was by
                                                                   communicating with the Moroccan authorities, which was
                                                                   not done, and monitoring the situation by the Community
                                                                   was the only safeguard, which, by being delegated to the
Action brought on 10 December 1997 by Pescados
                                                                   Spanish authorities, was in fact denied. Moreover, the fact
Congelados Jogamar SL against the Commission of the
                                                                   that Morocco does not regard the GPS system as a means
                    European Communities
                                                                   of establishing a vessel's position and accepts only its
                        (Case T-311/97)                            naval radar reports is seriously detrimental to the rights of
                          (98/C 94/70)                             the defence of fishing vessels equipped with that system.
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   Finally, if it is indeed the Community which is competent
                                                                   by virtue of the fishing agreements, it falls to it to
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   denounce the total and complete ineffectiveness of an
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   agreement which deprives European Union citizens and
Instance of the European Communities on 10 December
                                                                   vessels of any protection, and to take measures to prevent
1997 by Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL, whose
                                                                   it or, on the contrary, to emend Community law.
registered office is at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain),
represented by Manuel de Cristóbal López, of the Madrid
Bar, with an address for service at 15 Calle Prim, Madrid.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð uphold this action for declaration of failure to act;
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1997 by Cordis Obst und
    declare that the European Commission's failure to
                                                                   Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH against the Commission of
    take action with regard to the seizure of the Albor
                                                                                      the European Communities
    Uno constitutes a breach of the EEC Treaty (Article 38
    et seq.) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3954/92                                    (Case T-612/97)
    of 19 December 1992 on the conclusion of the
    Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector                                       (98/C 94/71)
    between the European Economic Community and the
    Kingdom of Morocco and laying down provisions for
    its implementation; declare that the European                                  (Language of the case: German)
    Commission should take action itself rather than
    delegate power to the national authorities in the
    fisheries sector; and make an express order requiring          An action against the Commission of the European
    the European Commission to pay the costs incurred.             Communities was brought before the Court of First