CELEX: C1995/299/26
Language: en
Date: 1995-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 August 1995 by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and others against the Council of the European Communities (Case T-158/95)

11.11.95            lENl                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 299/ 15
      Removal from the register of Case C-403 /93 ( 1 )                 C-403/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                           W/C 299/25 )                                 Regional Office of the Industrial Tribunals , London South ):
                                                                        M. J. C. 1 \ ans and the Executors of Priscilla Jane Evans v.
 By order of 15 September 1995 the President of the Sixth               Metropolitan Police Authority .
 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
 Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case              (') ()) No C 29.5 , 29 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCI
Action brought on 11 August 1995 by Eridania Zuccherifici                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 and
Nazionali SpA and others against the Council of the                         successive amendments thereto , at least as regards
                    European Communities                                    Article 8 thereof, where it provides that the
                        ( Case T- 15 8 /95 )                                reimbursement in question is to be the same for the
                          ( 95/C 299/26 )
                                                                            whole Community ( Whilst the unlawfulness of that
                                                                            prov ision might be mitigated by the presence at the same
                                                                            time of the principle contained in Article 46 ( 4 ), such
                ( Language of the case: Italian)                            unlawfulness is manifest where even that modest
                                                                            corrective provision is absent ),
An action against the Council of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       — make any such further ruling as may be necessary in the
European Communities on 11 August 1995 by Eridania                          circumstances ,
Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, with its registered office in
Genoa , and Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale
SpA , with its registered office in Padua ( the                        — award costs in favour of the applicants .
Eridania-Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA Group ); Societa
Sadam      Zuccherifici ,    a  division   of   Societa   Esercizi
Commerciali Industriali SpA, Societa Sadam Castiglionese               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
SpA and Societa Sadam Abruzzo SpA , all registered in
Bologna , and Societa Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, with its
registered office in Termoli ( the Sadam Zuccherifici Group );         A number of Italian sugar companies challenge the new
Societa Eondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA , with its                 Community rules on compensation for sugar storage costs
registered office in Cesena , and Societa Ponteco Zuccheri             laid down by Regulations ( EC]) No 1101 /95 and ( EC )
SpA , with its registered office in Pontelagoscuro ( the SEIR          No 1534/95 , at least in so far as they fail to differentiate the
Group ), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the             amounts of compensatory reimbursement payable by
High Court of Ireland , and by Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo               reference to the financing costs affecting the sugar
                                                                       manufacturers of each Member State .
Crocetta , of the Genoa Bar , with and address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen ,
12 Boulevard de la Loire .                                             It should be noted in that respect that, in order to avoid a
                                                                       manifestly unlawful result arising from the granting of the
The applicants claim that the Court should :                           same reimbursement to every Community manufacturer
                                                                       without reference to the different financing costs affecting
— annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1 101 /95 of 24 April 1995 , at           eacht of them . Regulation ( EEC ]) No 1785 / 81 contained a
    least in so far as , in amending Regulation ( EEC])                provision in Article 46 ( 4 ), always repeated in subsequent
    No 1785/81 , it does not provide for differentiation of            amendments , whereby ' the Italian Republic shall be
    the compensatory reimbursement for storage costs by­               authorized , when the interest rate granted in Italy to the
    reference to the financing costs affecting the sugar               most solvent applicant is higher, by 3 % or more , than the
    manufacturers of each country ,                                    interest rate used to calculate the reimbursement ( by way of
                                                                       compensation for storage costs ), to cover the effect of this
— annul Regulation ( EC]) No 1534/95 of 29 June 1995 , or              difference on the storage costs by a national aid '. That
    in any event Article 4 thereof, which fixes the amount of          remedy , which was in itself inadequate inasmuch as it
    the reimbursement for the 1995/96 marketing year                   imposed an unjustified threshold of 3% and in any event
    referred to in Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC ]) No 1785/8 1        constituted not a guarantee of higher reimbursement but
    at a single measure without reference to the interest rates        merely the possibility that the Italian Republic might grant
    prevailing in each Member State ,                                  an aid , no longer appears in the new rules which are in
                                                                       dispute . Under the new rules , such reimbursement is fixed
— annul , so far as may be necessary, all other measures in            by reference to an interest rate of 6,75 % , with no provision
    relation to the above/mentioned , whether prior ,                  for differentiation by reference to the financing costs
    subsequent or howsoever connected , including                      affecting sugar manufacturers in each country .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 299/ 1 6         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
That      legislative   omission     unjustifiably    penalizes      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
manufacturers in those countries where the real rate of
financing costs is higher than 6,75% , and particularly              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Italian manufacturers, since in Italy the interest rate in           in Case T-20/ 94 .
question is 11,65% .
In the applicants' submission, the new Community rules
manifestly infringe :
                                                                     Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Eridania
                                                                     Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and others against the Council
— Article 40 of the EEC Treaty , which excludes any                                       of the European Union
     discrimination between producers or consumers within                                     ( Case T-168/95 )
     the Community, and
                                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/28 )
— Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty, since the
                                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
     mechanism in question places unjustified obstacles to
     applying free market principles to Italian producers . The
     distortion in question increases the competitiveness of         An action against the Council of the European Union was
     foreign products on the Italian market while decreasing         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     that of Italian products on other Community                     Communities on 5 September 1 995 by Eridania Zuccherifici
     markets .                                                       Nazionali SpA , with its registered office in Genoa , and
                                                                     Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA , with its
                                                                     registered office in Padua ( the Eridania-Zuccherifici
                                                                     Nazionali SpA Group ); Societa Sadam Zuccherifici , a
                                                                     division of Societa Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA,
                                                                     Societa Sadam Castiglionese SpA and Societa Sadam
                                                                     Abruzzo SpA, all registered in Bologna , and Societa
                                                                     Zuccherifico del Molise SpA, with its registered office in
                                                                     Termoli ( the Sadam Zuccherifici Group ); Societa Fondiaria
Action brought on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr                Industriale Romagnola SpA, with its registered office in
von Marschalck against the Council of the European Union             Gesena , and Societa Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, with its
     and the Commission of the European Communities                  registered office in Pontelagoscuro ( the SFIR Group ),
                                                                     represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the High
                       ( Case T-162/95 )                             Court of Ireland , and by Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta,
                         ( 95/C 299/27 )                             of the Genoa Bar, with an adress for service in Luxembourg
                                                                     at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la
                                                                     Foire .
               (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
An action against the Council of the European Union and              — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1534/95 of 29 June
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    1995 fixing, for the 1 995/96 marketing year, the derived
before the Court of First Instance of the European                       intervention prices for white sugar , the intervention
Communities on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr von                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
Marschalck, represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild                  beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs
Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and                        ( OJ 1995 L 148 , p. 1 1 ); or in any event annul Article 1 ( f)
Dr Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte , Münster, with an                  thereof, fixing the derived intervention price for white
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     sugar for all the areas in Italy,
Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                     — annul       all   other     measures      in relation    to    the
                                                                         abovementioned, whether prior, subsequent or
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              howsoever connected , including Council Regulation
                                                                          ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 and successive
                                                                         amendments thereto , concerning the common
 1 . order the defendants to pay the applicant milk                      organization of the markets in the sugar sector, or in
      quota compensation ( SLOM-II ) pursuant to Council                  any event annul Articles 3 , 5 and 6 thereof and all
      Regulation No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 for the period                implementing measures,
      from 2 April 1984 to 15 June 1991 , amounting to
      DM 75 634,65 , together with 8 % interest from 1 9 May         — award costs in favour of the applicants .
      1992 , and to pay the costs of the proceedings,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . join the present case to Case T-77/93 Hülseberg and
      Others v. Council and Commission and likewise stay the         A number of Italian sugar-manufacturing companies, which
      proceedings .                                                  form groups within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation