CELEX: 62001TN0319
Language: en
Date: 2001-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-319/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Norway Seafoods Denmark A/S against the Commission of the European Communities

6.4.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/61
In view of the inactivity of the Community institution, the             It was stated in the application that the Community Ship-
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, received by the Com-              owners should hold 60 % of the shares of the joint enterprise,
mission on 30 July 2001, more than 53 months after                      while the partner in the relevant third Country, Namibia,
the complaint was lodged, called on the Commission, in                  should hold 40 % of the shares. After the withdrawal of the
accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, to adopt a                project of the Spanish company E. Vieira S.A. and the
position on the complaint and initiate the procedure under              replacement of two of the four vessels involved with two other
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.                                         vessels, the applicant and the Namibian partner concluded an
                                                                        agreement, according to which the applicant owned 28,51 %
                                                                        of the share capital, but only 13,68 % of the voting rights.
The Commission replied, after the two-month time-limit                  Finally, with effect from 1 May 1995, the applicant transferred
prescribed by Article 232, in a letter of 24 October 2001, in           part of its shareholding in the joint entreprise to the Namibian
which it does not define its position, but merely states that it        partner under an agreement providing that the applicant’s
is completing the internal preparatory work with regard to the          shareholding was reduced to 1 % of the share capital.
complaints.                                                             According to the contested Decision, the basis for providing
                                                                        financial aid has ceased to exist because of this reduction to
                                                                        1 % of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint undertaking,
                                                                        which is not be considered sufficient for a joint enterprise, as
                                                                        defined by Community Regulations.
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Norway Sea-
foods Denmark A/S against the Commission of the                         The contested Decision infringes Article 44(1) of the above
                   European Communities                                 mentioned Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4028/86.
                        (Case T-319/01)                                 —     The reduction of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % did not mean that a joint enterprise
                                                                              within the meaning of the Regulation no longer existed.
                        (2002/C 84/112)
                                                                        —     The applicant had a legitimate expectation that the
                  (Language of the case: English)                             reduction of the Applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % would not result in any demand for
                                                                              repayment of aid from the Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Norway                      (1) OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990, p. 1.
Seafoods Denmark A/S, represented by Mr Jacob Ørndrup of
Gorrissen Federspiel Kierkegaard, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October
      2001
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
                                                                        Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                (Case T-323/01)
The present application has been lodged against Commission
Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October 2001, regarding the                                          (2002/C 84/113)
reduction and repayment of financial aid to Foodmark A/S
under Commission Decision K(93)1823 of 5 July 1993, as
amended by Decision K(94)119 of 27 January 1994, for                                       (Language of the case: French)
Project SM/DNK/02/93, the object of which was an application
for financial aid pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 4028/88 of 18 December 1986, on Community measures
to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquacul-
ture sector as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
No. 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (1). The applicant’s name               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
at the time of this application was Foodmark A/S; this name             European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
was later changed to Foodmark Holding A/S and later still to            Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges
Norway Seafoods Denmark A/S.                                            Vandersanden and Laura Levi, avocats.