CELEX: 62010TN0451
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-451/10: Action brought on 28 September 2010 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission

20.11.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 317/46
            
         Action brought on 28 September 2010 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission
   (Case T-451/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/81
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH (Hörsching, Austria) (represented by: G. Lehner, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               conduct a hearing;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the applicant within 14 days the sum of EUR 2 623 282,31, together with interest of 6 % per annum on the sum of EUR 1 641 372,50 Euro from 24 September 2007 and interest of 6 % per annum on the sum of EUR 981 909,81 from 16 October 2007;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that the Commission of the European Communities is obliged to compensate the applicant for any further losses in connection with consignment KUK459 awarded on 3 September 2007 and consignment KUK465 awarded on 17 September 2007;
            
         
               —
            
            
               rule that the Commission of the European Communities is to pay to the applicant’s lawyer the applicant’s costs within 14 days.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicant seeks compensation for the loss which it states that it has incurred because certain quantities of the maize purchased by it in 2007 from the stocks of the Hungarian intervention agency in two tender procedures were missing from the relevant warehouses.
   In the grounds of its application, the applicant submits inter alia that the Commission failed to exercise its supervisory powers over the Hungarian paying agency and also did not insist on observance of the Hungarian paying agency’s obligations. It further states that it would have suffered no loss if the Commission had, in law and in fact, laid down more stringent and more precise requirements and control mechanisms in relation to the warehouse keepers’ fitness and reliability, to the suitability of the storage locations, and to stock surveys in respect of, and the identification and storage of, the intervention goods.