CELEX: C1999/352/37
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-351/99 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, ISI - Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA, Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of SECI - Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA and SFIR - Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnolo SpA against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-158/95 brought by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others against Council of the European Union

C 352/24               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
    — Breach of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88: failure           European Communities in Case T-158/95 brought by Eridania
        to comply with the procedural requirements governing           Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others against Council of the
        application of this authorisation. The contested               European Union, supported by the Commission, was brought
        decision was not preceded by an examination, let alone         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
        a suitable examination, of the measures in respect of          22 September 1999 by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA,
        which payment of the first advance was sought. While           established in Genoa, ISI — Industria Saccarifera Italiana
        the contested decision does refer to the Control Report        Agroindustriale SpA, established in Padua, Sadam Zuccherifici,
        on the regions of Rijnmond and Gelderland drawn up             a division of SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali
        by DG V/G/3, that Control Report does not have any             SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam Castiglionese SpA, estab-
        connection with the operations in respect of which             lished in Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna,
        payment of the advance is being sought. In the first           Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, established in Termoli and SFIR
        place, the report concerns operations in the past,             — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnolo SpA, established
        and, second, it relates to fewer regions than do the           in Cesena, incorporating, following a merger, Ponteco Zuccheri
        operations in respect of which the first advance was           SpA, also established in Cesena, all represented by Bernard
        sought by letter of 16 March 1999. In addition, the            O’Connor, Solicitor of the High Court of Ireland, and Ivano
        Control Report relates to operations designed to               Vigliotti, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in
        achieve objective 3, whereas the contested decision            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue
        relates not only to operations designed to achieve             Marie Adélaide, L-2128 Luxembourg.
        objective 3 but also to operations undertaken to attain
        objectives 1, 2 and 5b, as well as the Community
        Employment initiative.                                         The appellant claims that the Court should:
— Infringement of the principle of proportionality: the con-           (1) annul the decision of the Court of First Instance declaring
    tested decision goes beyond what is necessary for the                  inadmissible the applicants’ application for annulment
    protection of the Community’s financial interests. The                 of Regulation No 1534/95 (1) and Article 4 thereof in
    burdens which the contested decision imposes on pro-                   particular, for annulment of Regulation No 1101/95 (2) (in
    moters who were not the subject of the inspections and in              so far as, in Article 1(13) thereof, it replaces Article 46 of
    respect of whom the Control Report finds that closer                   Regulation No 1785/81 (3), and thereby prevents the Italian
    investigation is necessary in order to be able to determine            State from granting adjustment aid to Italian sugar pro-
    whether the practices criticised do in fact concern them               ducers for the costs of storage in Italy arising from high
    are out of all reasonable proportion.                                  interest rates), and for a declaration that Regulation
                                                                           No 1785/81, and Article 8 thereof in particular, is
— Infringement of the principle of adversarial proceedings.                unlawful;
— Breach of Article 253 EC (inadequate statement of reasons).          (2) annul the decision of the Court of First Instance ordering
                                                                           the applicants to bear the costs incurred by the Council;
(1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
                                                                       (3) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                           judgment in the application made in Case T-158/95
                                                                           for annulment of Regulation No 1534/95 and Article 4
                                                                           thereof in particular, for annulment of Regulation
                                                                           No 1101/95 (in so far as, in Article 1(13) thereof, it
                                                                           replaces Article 46 of Regulation No 1785/81, and thereby
                                                                           prevents the Italian State from granting adjustment aid to
                                                                           Italian sugar producers for the costs of storage in Italy
                                                                           arising from high interest rates), and for a declaration that
Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Eridania Zuc-                       Regulation No 1785/81, and Article 8 thereof in particular,
cherifici Nazionali SpA, ISI — Industria Saccarifera Itali-                is unlawful;
ana Agroindustriale SpA, Sadam Zuccherifici, a division
of SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA,                (4) if the Court of Justice considers that it can give final
Sadam Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccheri-                      judgment on the merits of Case T-158/95 pursuant to
ficio del Molise SpA and SFIR — Società Fondiaria                          Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, allow
Industriale Romagnolo SpA against the judgment deliver-                    the specific written and oral pleadings on those matters;
ed on 8 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-158/95 brought by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA                (5) order the Council to bear the costs of the case.
    and Others against Council of the European Union
                        (Case C-351/99 P)                              Pleas in law and principal arguments
                         (1999/C 352/37)                               The appellants contest the judgment:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by             — insofar as it is held that the application for annulment of
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 1(13) of Regulation No 1101/95 is inadmissible;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/25
— insofar as it is held that Article 4 of Regulation No 1534/95         The appellant claims that the Court should:
    is not of individual concern to the appellants, and the
    fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now,              1. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declared
    after amendment, Article 230 EC), as interpreted by the                 inadmissible the action brought by the appellants for
    case-law of the Court of Justice, is thereby breached;                  annulment of Regulation No 1534/95 (1), specifically
                                                                            Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
                                                                            No 1785/81 (2), specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof, is
                                                                            unlawful;
The appellants submit that the decision of the Court of First
Instance is flawed and erroneous and therefore incompatible
                                                                        2. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it ordered
with Community rules.                                                       the appellants to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
                                                                        3. Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
                                                                            ruling on the application made in Case T-168/95 for
(1) OJ 1995 L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.                                      annulment of Regulation (EEC) No 1534/95, specifically
(2) OJ 1995 L 110 of 17.5.1995, p. 1.                                       Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
(3) OJ 1981 L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                        (EEC) No 1785/81, specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof,
                                                                            is unlawful;
                                                                        4. Should the Court of Justice deem it appropriate to
                                                                            adjudicate on the merits of Case T-168/95, in accordance
                                                                            with Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, admit
                                                                            the oral and written pleadings specifically related thereto;
                                                                        5. Order the Council to pay the costs.
Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Società Eridan-                  Pleas and main arguments
ia SpA, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agoindustriale SpA
(ISI), Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of Società Esercizi               As grounds for the present appeal, the appellants allege various
Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI), Sadam Castiglionese                 infringements of Community law by the Court of First Instance.
SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Società Zuccherificio del                       In particular, they maintain that, in finding that the applicants
Molise SpA and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                  were not individually concerned by Article 1(f) of the contested
SpA (SFIR) against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999                Regulation, the Court of First Instance infringed the fourth
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  paragraph of Article 230 EC (formerly Article 173 of the EC
the European Communities in Case T-168/95 between                       Treaty) as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others and
the Council of the European Union, supported by the
        Commission of the European Communities                          The appellants maintain that the judgment under appeal is
                                                                        flawed and erroneous, hence incompatible with Community
                                                                        law.
                       (Case C-352/99 P)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.
                        (1999/C 352/38)                                 (2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-168/95 between Società Eridania Spa and Others and the
Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission,
was brought before the Court of Justice on 22 September
1999 by Società Eridania SpA, whose registered office is in
Genoa, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA (ISI),        Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
whose registered office is in Padua, Sadam Zuccherifici, a                 mission of the European Communities against Ireland
division of Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI),
whose registered office is in Bologna, Sadam Castiglionese SpA                                  (Case C-354/99)
and Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose registered offices are in
Bologna, Società Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose regis-
tered office is at Termoli, and Società Fondiaria Industriale                                   (1999/C 352/39)
Romagnola SpA (SFIR), whose registered office is at Cesena,
incorporating, following a merger, Ponteco Zuccheri SpA,                An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
whose registered office is also at Cesena, all represented by           Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 1999
Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor with a right of audience before             by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
the High Court of Ireland, and Ivano Vigliotti, of the Genoa            by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaide,                   Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
L-2128 Luxembourg.                                                      Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.