CELEX: C1997/357/65
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 September 1997 by Società Camar s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Case T-260/97)

22 . 11 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/35
  7 . The Disciplinary Board lacked independence as a                       refusal to take into account, in calculating Category B
       result of deferential fear and fear of reprisals against             licences, its normal reference quantity (which is that of
       the careers of its members. The applicant claims that                the three years immediately prior to the outbreak of
       there was an attempt to interfere with a witness's                   the war in Somalia ),
       deposition.
                                                                      — in the alternative, order the Council, pursuant to
  8 . Breach of the freedom of trade union activity and of                  Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
       the privileges of the staff committee and of the                     of the EC Treaty, to pay compensation to Camar in
       general assembly of the staff.                                       the event that the Court should decide that that
                                                                            institution is liable for not having adopted a specific
  9 . Misuse of powers.                                                     provision in Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 H allowing
                                                                            situations such as that of Camar to be resolved,
10. Breach of the principle of proportionality inasmuch
       as there were no grounds for making the disciplinary           — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the
       measure more severe. In this regard, the applicant                   costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.
       points out that the disciplinary measure annulled in
       Case T-500/93 was deferment of advancement to a
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       higher step for two years, that the Disciplinary Board
       had proposed that the official be reprimanded and
       that one of the charges constituted actual                     The applicant company is the same as that in Case T-172/
       misconduct. In the present case, despite the fact that         97 Camar v. Commission (2), which involved proceedings,
       the misconduct relied on is manifestly non-existent            alleging failure to fulfil obligations, seeking that the non­
       and that the Disciplinary Board delivered the                  member country licences normally allocated to it as a
       unanimous opinion that the official should be                  Category B operator should be quantified, not on the basis
       acquitted, the disciplinary measure was even more              of imports over the three-year period provided for under
       severe .                                                       Article 4 of Regulation No 1442/93 , but rather on the
                                                                      basis of imports over the years 1988 , 1989 and 1990 . The
                                                                      present application is directed against the express decision
                                                                      rejecting the applicant's request.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Action brought on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar                  already relied on in Case T- 172/97. Reference is made in
s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities                 particular to breach of Article 30 of the basic regulation in
                and Council of the European Union                     the banana sector ( Council Regulation No 404/93 ), breach
                         ( Case T-260/97)                             of the principle of non-discrimination and of the
                                                                      fundamental rights of traders, as well as to the existence
                           ( 97/C 357/65 )                            of abuse of power by reason of an erroneous assessment
                                                                      of assumptions of fact.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      (') OJ L 49 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ C 271 , 6 . 9 . 1997, p. 16 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar
s.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, assisted by
Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      Action brought on 2 October 1997 by 'D' against Council
Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                  of the European Union
                                                                                                  (Case T-264/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 357/66 )
— annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
      Treaty, the Commission decision of 17 July 1997                                    (Language of the case: French)
      rejecting an application for transitional measures in
      favour of Camar under the tariff quota system for
      imports of bananas,                                             An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 2 October 1997 by 'D', represented by
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and                   Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and
      the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,           Fran^oise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
      to pay compensation for the damage which Camar has              for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
      suffered and will suffer as a result of the Commission's        Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.