CELEX: C2004/059/08
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-521/03 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2003 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order made on 15 October 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-372/02 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and the Commission of the European Communities

6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 59/5
Appeal brought on 15 December 2003 by Internationaler                     misinterpreted both the content and the significance of these
Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order made on 15 October                      letters and, thus, made a judicial error creating negative legal
2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                  consequences for the Appellant. The Court did not apply the
of the European Communities in case T-372/02 between                      rule of Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure, that consideration
Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and the Commission of the                 of the admissibility of the plea shall be reserved for final
                    European Communities                                  judgment.
                        (Case C-521/03 P)
                                                                          The Court of First Instance committed a further procedural
                                                                          error by not accepting the final observations of the Appellant
                          (2004/C 59/08)                                  of 14 October 2002 as part of the file of pleadings. According
                                                                          to Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure, new evidence may be
                                                                          intoduced if based on matters of law or fact which come to
                                                                          light during the course of the procedure. The Appellant has
                                                                          confirmed that the ECHO message was only discovered
An appeal against the order made on 15 October 2003 by the                recently. The Court had not informed the Appellant that the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              written procedure had been closed.
Communities in case T-372/02 (1) between Internationaler
Hilfsfonds e.V. and the Commission of the European Com-
munities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 15 December 2003 by Interna-                      The Court of First Instance has, furthermore, to be held
tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., (hereinafter ‘IH’), established in Ros-         responsible for not having organised an inquiry, in accordance
bach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.                    with normal procedural practice, into the question of why
                                                                          ECHO did not reopen the file of the Applicant after it had
                                                                          received the positive (although late) reaction of the German
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                               Foreign Office with regard to the situation of the Applicant.
—     quash the order of the Court of First Instance of
      15 October 2003;
                                                                          The Court of First Instance, by including in its deliberations
                                                                          matters of substance, has erroneously based its considerations
—     order the Respondent to bear the cost of the procedure.             on Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 (2) although that Regulation
                                                                          entered into force after the application by IH for signing the
                                                                          first FPA.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Court has not addressed in its deliberations the ‘suspen-
                                                                          sion’ of the treatment of IH’s application, which had been
                                                                          defined as an illegal measure by the European Ombudsman.
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance has                The Court has ignored the fact that neither the earlier rules on
been guilty of a serious breach of procedure in not organising            cooperation with ECHO nor the new Regulation (EC) No 1257/
an oral procedure, thus preventing the Appellant from pre-                96 include any reference to the need for consultation of
senting in detail its views on the question of the admissibility          national authorities.
of its action. The Court was not correct in considering that
there existed any absolute bar to proceeding with the action.
Also, the Court ignored the fact that the Defendant had not
applied for a decision on admissiblity by separate document.
                                                                          The Court of First Instance has not given any weight to the
                                                                          decisions of the European Ombudsman (1702/2001/GG) who
                                                                          had declared ECHO guilty of four acts of maladministration
The Court of First Instance has, on the contrary, based its               and pronounced a certain number of critical remarks.
deliberations on a letter from the Defendant of 19 July 2001
which was, however, nothing more than a reply to ongoing
discussions between ECHO and the Appellant in the course of
that year. IH was not able to recognise it as a ‘decision’. The
contested decision (letter of 22 October 2002, signed on                  With regard to another matter of substance, the Court has,
behalf of the responsible member of the Commission to                     according to the terms of its order, disregarded the rules
whom the Appellant had addressed a request for decision on                applicable to audits which the ECHO-staff wanted to undertake
27 August 2002) was, indeed, the final decision which closed              at the IH-office. In particular, it has not checked the question
the debate between the parties. The Court of First Instance has           of the application of the principle of subsidiarity. Nor has the
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
Court taken into account that neither the former rules nor the            Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
new Regulations include a reference to audits. The audit                  of the European Communities against G. & E. Gianniotis
proposed by ECHO had a discriminatory character in so far as                         EPE, trading as ‘Nosokomio Agia Eleni’
there was no justification given for undertaking such an audit
once the German Foreign Office had confirmed the legal status
of IH as a charitable organisation.                                                                (Case C-524/03)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 59/10)
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003, p. 21.
(2) of the Council, of 20 June 1996, concerning humanitarian aid (OJ
    L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 1).
                                                                          An action against G. &. E. Gianniotis EPE, trading as ‘Nosoko-
                                                                          mio Agia Eleni’ was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                          the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Dimitri Triandafilou of its Legal Service, assisted by Nicolao
                                                                          Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Biotrast AE, Anoni-
               mi Eteria Tekhnologion Aikhmis                             The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant:
                                                                          (a)   to pay the amount of EUR 236 977,73, comprising the
                          (Case C-523/03)
                                                                                principal sum of EUR 212 010,17 and daily interest of
                                                                                EUR 24 697,76 from the date of each debit note until
                           (2004/C 59/09)                                       31 October 2003;
                                                                          (b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 42,16 per day as
                                                                                from 31 October 2003 until payment in full of the debt;
An action against Biotrast AE, Anonomi Eteria Tekhnologion
Aikhmis, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                   (c)   to pay the costs.
European Communities on 15 December 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris
Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, and by Nikolaos Koroyian-
nakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Luxembourg. The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (a)   Liability to repay the amount unduly paid by the Com-
                                                                                mission;
order the defendant:
                                                                          (b) Date on which interest became payable.
(a)   to pay the amount of EUR 730 726,81, representing a
      capital sum of EUR 661 838,82 and daily interest of EUR
      68 887,99, from the date on which the debit note fell
      due with interest at 4,77 % until 31.12.2002 and 6,77 %
      from 11.2003;
(b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 122,75 per day
      from 31.10.2003 until the debt is repaid in full;                   Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(c)   to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (Case C-525/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 59/11)
(a)   There is an obligation to repay the amount unduly paid
      by the Commission.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(b) The date on which interest became payable.                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Klaus Wiedner and Claudio Loggi, acting as
                                                                          Agents.