CELEX: C1999/333/68
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-196/99: Action brought on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A. and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

20.11.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 333/29
— Abuse of process, inasmuch as it would be for the Court,               — declare the Council liable for the loss and damage caused
     in any event, to establish, in the course of proceedings for            by its failure to contest the TAC, adopted within NAFO, of
     failure to fulfil obligations, whether the conduct of a                 27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut for 1995;
     Member State was apt to remedy breaches alleged in
     connection with an aid procedure or not.                            — declare the Council and the Commission liable for the loss
                                                                             and damage arising from the approval given to the signing
Finally, the applicant claims that the obligation to state reasons           of the bilateral Agreement between the EC and Canada and
was breached.                                                                the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1761/95;
                                                                         — declare the Council and/or the Commission liable for the
                                                                             loss and damage caused by all or any of the acts of
                                                                             either of those institutions as described in the preceding
                                                                             paragraphs;
Action brought on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A.
and Others against the Council of the European Union                     — order the Commission and the Council to pay compen-
    and the Commission of the European Communities                           sation for the losses suffered by the applicants as a result
                                                                             of the acts of both those institutions;
                         (Case T-196/99)
                                                                         — declare that the Commission and the Council are strictly
                        (1999/C 333/68)                                      liable, even in the absence of any fault or unlawful act, and
                                                                             order them to pay compensation for the loss and damage
                                                                             caused;
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         — fix the amount of the compensation payable in relation to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             the damage suffered by the applicants in 1995 in a
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                             minimum sum — corresponding to the criteria set out
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               in the application in the present case — of between
on 2 September 1999 by Area Cova S.A., established in Vigo,                  23 836 750 euro and 50 393 979 euro;
Pontevedra, Spain, Armadora José Pereira S.A., established in
Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán S.A.,
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Centropesca S.A.,                — order the parties to agree between them the amount of the
established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Chymar S.A., estab-                  compensation payable in respect of the damage suffered
lished in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, Eloymar S.A., established in              by the applicants in the years following 1995, on the basis
Estribela, Pontevedra, Spain, Exfaumar S.A., established in                  that such amount is to be reviewed and, if necessary,
Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain, Farpespan S.L., established in Moaña,              modified by the Court;
Pontevedra, Spain, Freiremar S.A., established in Vigo, Ponte-
vedra, Spain, Hermanos Gandón S.A., established in Cangas,              — fix the amount of the compensation payable in respect of
Pontevedra, Spain, Heroya S.A., established in Vigo, Ponteve-                the non-material damage suffered by the applicants, which
dra, Spain, Hio Pesca S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,                 should in their view total 25 000 euro in relation to each
Spain, José Pereira e Hijos S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,           vessel concerned;
Spain, Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Pontevedra, Spain,
Moradiña S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,                — order the Council and/or the Commission to pay to the
Navales Cerdeiras S.A., established in Camariñas, La Coruña,               applicants the whole of the costs incurred by the applicants
Spain, Nugago Pesca S.A., established in Bueu, Pontevedra,                   in the proceedings.
Spain, Pesquera Austral S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,
Spain, Pescaberbés S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Cı́es S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pesca Herculina S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquera Inter S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain,
Pesquerı́as Marinenses S.A., established in Marı́n, Pontevedra,          The applicants in the present case claim that they should be
Spain, Pesquerı́as Tara S.A., established in Cangas, Pontevedra,         paid compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them,
Spain, Pesquera Vaqueiro S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,          which has been caused by the unlawful and negligent way in
Spain, and Sotelo Dios S.A., established in Vigo, Pontevedra,            which, according to them, the Council and the Commission
Spain, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona           have acted in the so-called ‘halibut war’. In their submission,
Bar, and Eva Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn,             there are three specific masters giving rise to non-contractual
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service c/o Cabinet               liability:
Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
                                                                         — the negotiations conducted by the Commission at the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                             NAFO meeting in September 1994, which culminated in
— declare the Commission liable for the loss and damage                      the regulation by NAFO of fishing for Greenland halibut
     arising from its conduct in the course of the negotiations              and the adoption of a TAC for Greenland halibut in 1995;
     held within the framework of the NAFO Convention with
     a view to establishing a TAC for Greenland halibut for              — the failure by the Council to oppose the proposed TAC of
     1995;                                                                   27 000 metric tonnes for Greenland halibut; and
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
— the proposal by the Commission, and the approval thereof               European Communities on 6 September 1999 by Anthony
    by the Council, regarding the signing of the bilateral               Gooch, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
    Agreement between the EC and Canada, inasmuch as it                  Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
    establishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for the EC from           sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    16 April 1995, and the adoption of Regulation (EC)                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
    No 1761/95 amending Regulation (EC) No 3366/94, by
    hich provision is made for certain conservation and
    management measures for fishery resources in the Regulat-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    ory Area defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral
    Cooperation in the North West Atlantic Fisheries (OJ                 — annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s
    L 171 of 21.7.1995).                                                     request for compensation dated 28 April 1998;
In support of their claims, the applicants maintain that:                — order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                             BEF 154 109, together with default interest at the annual
— the Commission has acted unlawfully, on account of                         rate of 8 % from 28 April 1998;
    the alleged serious shortcomings in its handling of the
    negotiations held within the framework of the NAFO
    Convention in September 1994 with a view to the                      — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    adoption of a series of measures for the administration and
    conservation of fishery resources in the NAFO Regulatory
    Area. The said unlawfulness is based, in precise terms, on
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
    such grounds as its failure to defend the interests of the
    Community, lack of information and poor management
    on the part of the Community delegation and the adoption             The applicant entered into service with the Commission on
    of a TAC based on criteria other than those traditionally            1 September 1995. The applicant’s place of recruitment and
    applied;                                                             of origin was initially fixed as being London. On 20 September
                                                                         1996 the applicant submitted a request for exemption from
— the Council has acted unlawfully by accepting, without                 value added tax (VAT) in respect of the purchase of a car. By
    any reservation whatever, the forecasts contained in Article         note dated 23 September 1996 the Head of the Unit respon-
    XII of the NAFO Convention and the proposal by the                   sible for Management of Individual Rights decided to change
    NAFO Fisheries Commission that a total allowable catch of            the applicant’s place of recruitment from London to Brussels.
    27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut be established,            On 27 July 1997, following the lodging of a complaint, that
    when, in the applicants’ view, that position was contrary            department drew up a ‘file note’ (re)fixing London as the
    to the interests of the Community;                                   applicant’s place of recruitment.
— the institutions acted unlawfully in the negotiation and
    ratification of the bilateral fisheries Agreement between            Following that change in the fixing of the applicant’s place of
    Canada and the EC and in proposing and approving                     origin, the Commission on 27 July 1997 sent the request for
    Regulation (EC) No 1761/95, cited above, which esta-                 exemption from VAT to the Belgian authorities, who refused
    blishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for catches of                to act on it, on the ground that it was out of time. According
    Greenland halibut by the Community fleet with effect from            to the Belgian rules, any request by the applicant for exemption
    16 April 1995.                                                       should have been submitted before 20 November 1996. The
                                                                         applicant thereafter paid the sum of BEF 154 109 in respect
In the alternative, the applicants plead strict liability on the         of VAT, in accordance with instructions given by the Head of
part of the Community on account of their having committed               the Unit. However, the Commission has not reimbursed that
a breach of the principle of equal distribution of public                VAT to him.
burdens.
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                             expectations;
Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Anthony Gooch
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     — breach of the principle of sound management and good
                                                                             administration;
                         (Case T-197/99)
                                                                         — failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
                         (1999/C 333/69)                                     welfare and interests of officials; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                        — failure to comply with Article 288(2) EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the