CELEX: C2000/355/57
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-244/00: Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Coillte Teoranta against the Commission of the European Communities

9.12.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/25
Rue, against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton                 In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
and G. Ramos Ruano) and European Parliament (Agents:
M. Gómez Leal and F. de Wachter) — application for an order                 —    breach of the principle of audi alteram partem, as laid
suspending the operation of the notice of competition intended                    down in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
to establish a shortlist as a recruitment reserve for Spanish-                    No 1116/88 of 20 April 1988 laying down detailed rules
language administrators (EUR/A/159/2000) and for Spanish-                         for the application of decisions granting aid for projects
language assistant administrators (PE/90/A), published in the                     concerning Community measures to improve and adapt
Official Journal of the European Communites on 10 June 2000                       structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and in
(OJ C 162 A) — the President of the Court of First Instance                       structural works in coastal waters (2), and of the right of
made an order on 12 October 2000, the operative part of                           access to Commission documents
which is as follows:
                                                                             —    breach of the obligation to state reasons
1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                             —    infringement of Articles 44(1) and 47 and Part II.B of
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                        Regulation No (EEC) 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                                  Community measures to improve and adapt structures in
                                                                                  the fisheries and aquaculture sector (3), inasmuch as it
                                                                                  lacks a legal basis for describing changes to the project in
                                                                                  question as ‘substantial changes’.
                                                                             (1) OJ 1996 C 77, p. 11.
                                                                             (2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.
                                                                             (3) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’ S.r.l.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-241/00)
                           (2000/C 355/56)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Coillte Teoran-
European Communities on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’                      ta against the Commission of the European Communities
S.r.l., represented by Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Maz-
zonetto, of the Padua Bar, and Guy Arendt of the Luxembourg                                           (Case T-244/00)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val St Croix.
                                                                                                      (2000/C 355/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
—      annul Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July
       2000;
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the Commission to make good the damage;                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Coillte
                                                                             Teoranta, represented by Guy French, of McCann FitzGerald,
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.             Dublin (Ireland) and Paul Gallagher and Niamh Hyland.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             —    annul that part of Commission Decision of 5 July 2000
By the present action, the applicant, who also brought the                        excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
action in Case T-218/95 Le Canne v Commission (1), contests                       incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000 reducing                        Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
the contribution originally granted by Decision C (90) 1923/99                    Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to the extent that the decision
of 30 October 1990 in respect of the ‘the modernisation and                       excludes expenditure incurred by Ireland of 4,8 million
development of a breeding area at Rosalina (Veneto)’ project.                     Euros in respect of ineligible afforestation aid; and
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the application.           —     The Commission infringed the principle of the protection
                                                                                of legitimate expectations in seeking to recover premium
                                                                                payments in circumstances where it has accepted that the
                                                                                applicant came into the terms of Article 2(2)(b) and it has
                                                                                altered its position on foot of the Commission’s actions.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92, of 30 June 1992, institut-
                                                                              ing a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture
                                                                              (OJ L 215, of 30 July 1992, p. 96).
                                                                          (2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Counil, of 21 April 1970, on
According to the applicant, the contested decision in the                     the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English
present case, which relates to a Programme for Afforestation                  Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).
partially financed by the European Community, has the effect
of
—     preventing the State from paying the EU premiums
      provided for under Regulation No 2080/92 (1) that were
      suspended by the State from 22 November 1999. As a
      result, the State will pay no EU premiums to which the              Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Abibes and
      applicant would otherwise be entitled from 1 September              Others against Commission of the European Communities
      2000.
                                                                                     (Cases T-245/00, T-246/00 and T-248/00)
—     excluding the applicant from the category of persons
      entitled to loss of income premiums pursuant to                                               (2000/C 355/58)
      Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation No 2080/92.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In support of its claims, the applicant makes the following               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
submissions:                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Abibes
                                                                          and Others, represented by Andrea Bortoluzzi and Chiara
                                                                          Montagner, of the Venice Bar.
—     The contested decision is void since it is based on
      Regulation No 729/70 (2) which, at the date on which the
      decision was taken, had been repealed;                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
—     The Commission misinterpreted the provisions of Regu-
      lation No 2080/92 in excluding the applicant from the               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      provisions of Article 2(2)(b); it is stressed on this point
      that, since the applicant is a ‘private-law legal person’, the
      concept of ‘public entity’ relied upon by the Commission            Pleas in law and main arguments
      has no basis in law:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
                                                                          Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
—     The contested decision infringes Articles 253 and 295 of            Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
      the Treaty;
                                                                          The applicants claim in particular that there has been a
                                                                          manifest error of assessment of the facts, as well as of
—     The Commission infringed the principles of legal cer-               procedure, in so far as the relief from contributions in question
      tainty, inasmuch as it was under a duty to inform Ireland           are characterised as aid. The applicants also allege infringement
      of any doubts it had concerning eligibility, which it failed        of Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.
      to do; in fact, no objection was taken to Ireland’s
      programme to the extent that it expected that private
      companies, including the applicant, would be bodies                 (1) Not yet published.
      eligible for loss-of-income premiums and on 27 April
      1994, the Commission approved Ireland’s afforestation
      programme.