CELEX: C1998/151/22
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 March 1998 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-46/98)

16.5.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/11
19 December 1997 for an import licence in respect of                Instance on 10 March 1998 by the Council of European
sugar originating in the OCT had to be declared                     Municipalities and Regions, established in Paris,
inadmissible. That Regulation is intended to implement              represented by Daniel M. Tomasevic, of the Brussels Bar,
Article 108b, which was inserted into Decision 91/482/              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
EEC by Decision 97/803/EC.                                          chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
By way of a plea of illegality, the applicant submits that
Decision 97/803/EC, or at least the Articles thereof which          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
restrict the importation of sugar originating in the OCT, is        should:
contrary to Community law. The grounds are identical to
those in Case T-43/98.
Also by way of a plea of illegality, the applicant submits          Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
that Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 is contrary to                           Communities contained in debit note 97009405F
Community law:                                                           concerning ECOS Project No 91/00/29003, by which
                                                                         the Commission refuses to pay to the CEMR a balance
                                                                         of ECU 204 446 and claims from the CEMR a balance
1. since Decision 97/803/EC is unlawful, the Regulation                  of ECU 363 336,
    based on it is also invalid;
2. there is no valid legal basis for the requirement for an
    import licence laid down in the Regulation;                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
3. if (secondary) Community legislation does provide a
    legal basis for the requirement for a licence for the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    importation of OCT sugar, Articles 132 and 30 of the
    EC Treaty oppose it;
                                                                    The applicant, a federation of 37 national associations of
4. the licences in question are EUR-1 certificates, which
                                                                    local and regional authorities in 28 European countries,
    the OCT authorities have exclusive competence to
                                                                    contests the decision by which the Commission refuses to
    issue; that competence cannot be restricted by the
                                                                    approve certain expenses in relation to a project
    Commission;
                                                                    undertaken within the framework of the European City
                                                                    Cooperation System (ECOS) Programme. It states that it
5. the supplementary requirements laid down by the                  has been involved since the early 1960s in the
    Commission give rise to additional barriers to trade;           management of that programme, launched by the
                                                                    Commission's Directorate-General XIV, the purpose of
                                                                    which is to promote cooperation between local authorities
6. the Regulation is contrary to the WTO and the other              of the European Union and those of the countries of
    agreements adopted in that context.                             Central and Eastern Europe.
Furthermore, the Regulation only entered into force on
1 January 1998 and, in the applicant's opinion, could not
therefore serve as a basis for the decision.                        As regards the facts of the case, the applicant claims that
                                                                    the ECOS Programme gave rise to a first decision to grant
                                                                    Community aid to it, notified on 10 December 1991, and
(1) OJ L 349, 19.12.1997, p. 26.
                                                                    that the Commission even decided subsequently to grant
                                                                    additional aid. On 19 April 1996 the applicant received a
                                                                    fax from the defendant signalling its approval of the final
                                                                    report.     However,       immediately    following      that
                                                                    communication, it became apparent that the defendant
                                                                    was starting to change its attitude regarding the project,
Action brought on 10 March 1998 by the Council of                   and as a result the contested decision was adopted.
European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-46/98)
                                                                    The applicant first alleges infringement of the obligation
                        (98/C 151/22)                               to state reasons, in that the defendant did not reply to any
                                                                    of the arguments set out in various letters, in particular
                                                                    the one which followed the meeting of 24 September
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1997. The Commission did not explain why certain
                                                                    supporting documents were not regarded as adequate even
An action against the Commission of the European                    though the Commission itself asked for them to be sent
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   to it.
 ---pagebreak--- C 151/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.5.98
The applicant also accuses the Commission of breaching              Instance on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA,
the terms of the decisions granting aid, and the principles         represented by Luca G. Radicato di Brozolo, of the Milan
of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
It states that the defendant abandoned its clear position of        chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
19 April 1996 by virtue of a decision taken almost two
years after submission of the financial report and that it
must therefore be concluded that there was a change of
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
attitude, at variance with instructions given earlier, and
                                                                    should:
also a lack of clear indications concerning chargeable
expenditure and the procedure to be followed for
obtaining prior confirmation as to whether expenditure
was chargeable. The applicant draws particular attention            Ð annul the Commission Decision of 21 January 1998
to the uncertainty cast upon its status as a network. In                 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
that connection, the applicant states that, in the past, the             ECSC Treaty (Case IV/35.814 Extra lega),
CEMR has managed numerous projects in conjunction
with the Commission, in which importance was always
attached to the contribution made by its network, upon
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul that Decision in so far as it
which the defendant was able to rely to ensure the success
                                                                         orders the applicant (a) to pay a fine (Article 2) and
of the project. Similarly, the Commission did not comply
                                                                         (b) to bring the infringement to an end (Article 4),
with the terms of the aid decisions concerning particular
headings and rates of joint financing.
                                                                    Ð in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on
                                                                         AST,
Moreover, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission's
conduct,       consisting     in   sending      contradictory
communications at very short intervals, without giving
any clarification of them, despite various requests to that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
effect, is indicative of manifest disfunction within the
Commission which is not compatible with the principle of
sound administration.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of
proportionality, in that the Commission states that staff           The decision at issue in this case is the same as the one in
and operational expenses cannot be taken into account               Case T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen Stainless v. Commission. The
since there is no specific management structure for the             pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
ECOS project in respect of the relevant headings. In its            similar to those put forward in the latter case. In support
view, the defendant's position on that point is liable to           of its claims, the applicant, an Italian producer of stainless
increase the costs to be shared amongst the local                   steel, alleges infringement of the ECSC Treaty and of
authorities making up its network.                                  numerous rules and of substantive principles concerning
                                                                    its application, and also acts ultra vires and infringements
                                                                    of essential procedural requirements. It is contended that
                                                                    the contested Decision does not clearly identify the
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of           infringement imputed to the undertakings. In that
equal treatment as far as it is concerned.                          connection, the defendant is accused of giving an incorrect
                                                                    and confused account and assessment of the facts and
                                                                    contradictory reasoning which is not set out with the
                                                                    required degree of detail.
                                                                    As regards the fine imposed, the applicant contends that
Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali                  the conditions for its imposition were not fulfilled.
Terni SpA against the Commission of the European                    Moreover, its amount was determined in breach of
                          Communities                               the relevant principles, including the principle of
                                                                    proportionality.
                        (Case T-47/98)
                         (98/C 151/23)
                                                                    In its third plea in law, the applicant alleges that the
                                                                    requirement that the infringement be brought to an end,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     contained in Article 4 of the Decision, is lacking in its
                                                                    subject-matter, is imprecise and has no legal basis.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First