CELEX: C1995/074/23
Language: en
Date: 1995-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-7/95)

No C 74/12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 3 . 95
 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                 proven unlawfulness of those measures that the contested
 should :                                                              measure extending the abovementioned Community
                                                                       obligation is also unlawful.
 — first require the defendant authorities to produce the
     documents asked for and specified, expressly subject to           The provisions imposing obligations are unlawful as a
     any supplementary measures,                                       consequence of the illegality of Article 39 (4) of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 822/87 and the fourth indent of Article 4 (2) of
     and then                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 441 /88
 — annul Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3151/94 (*) and              The applicant raises a preliminary plea based on the
     any other act connected to it and/or on which it is based,        lawfulness of Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC) No 822/87,
     on the preliminary objection under Article 184 of the             in so far as it determines the quantity to be delivered for
     EEC Treaty that Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )             distillation by each producer; essentially, each producer is
     No 822/87, and the fourth indent of Article 4 (2 ) of             required to distil a certain percentage of the volume
     Regulation (EEC ) No 441/88 are invalid,                          produced, determined according to the 'yield Per hectare'.
                                                                       Since that rule is subject to absolutely no test calculated to
                                                                       demonstrate actual overproduction or the quality of the
 — order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.                      product, it is clearly unsuitable for the pursuit of the
                                                                       Community's objectives, and it imposes excessive penalties
                                                                       on producers of good-quality wine who have in no way
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                       overproduced.
 Breach of Article 39 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 With respect to the unlawfulness of the fourth indent of
 No 822/87                                                            Article 4 (2 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 441/88 , the applicant
                                                                      criticizes the failure to divide Italy into several production
                                                                      regions, since that leads to failure to take account of the
The applicant claims that the contested provision is
                                                                      special characteristics of the Italian wine-producing areas in
 unlawful because it is not based on the legal premise that it
                                                                      terms of land, production, origin and development.
 should operate to remedy the imbalance of the current wine
year, as required in Article 39 ( 1 ) of the basic regulation; in
essence, it considers the abovementioned measure to be                 H OJ No L 332, 22 . 12 . 1994, p. 32 .
 unlawful inasmuch as the regulation seeks to restore the
 balance of the marketing year 1993/94 by fulfilment of the
obligation to distil in both the completed wine year 1993/94
and also during the new wine year 1994/95 .
Breach of the principle that Community acts should be
proportionate to their aim                                            Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang against
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                                          European Communities
The applicant claims that the Community legislature
wrongfully sought to restore the balance of the wine year                                      (Case T-7/95 )
 1993/94 by requiring a quantity of wine to be removed from                                     ( 95/C 74/23 )
the market not only for the completed wine year but also
during the new marketing year (the 1994/95 vintage is
already in). The applicant regards that measure as                                   (Language of the case: German)
manifestly and wholly ineffective, having regard to the aim
of the framework legislation; it claims that there is no doubt        An action against the Council of the European Union and
that the measure is insufficient to restore the balance of a
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
market ( by removing an excess of supply compared to                  before the Court of First Instance of the European
expected demand) for the last wine year. The measure                  Communities on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang, Burggen
therefore appears not to be 'appropriate and necessary' for           ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
the attainment of the objective pursued .                             Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte, Miinster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Unlawful for lack of grounds                                          of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant points out that the compulsory distillation
prescribed by the European Communitiy for the wine year               The applicant claims that the Court should :
1993/94 is a serious breach of the Community rules
governing the common organization of the wine market and              1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
the principles on which the Community legal order is based.                SLOM I compensation for the period from 1 1 February
In the applicant's opinion, it follows from the manifest and               1986 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 88 805,
 ---pagebreak--- 25.3.95            I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/13
    together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May               Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Akli Chehab against
    1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as             the Commission of the European Communities
    well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
                                                                                           (Case T-10/95 )
    7 910,16 ;
                                                                                            ( 95/C 74/25 )
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                                  (Language of the case: French)
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 January 1995
                                                                   by Akli Chehab, residing in Paris ( France ), represented by
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Case T-20/94 .                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decision of 22 March 1994 in
                                                                       so far as it restricts to 3 % the additional rate of
Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle                     permanent partial invalidity reflecting the deterioration
against Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the applicant's state of health,
                 the European Communities
                       (Case T-8/95 )                              — order the Commission, to pay the costs.
                        ( 95/C 74/24 )
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
               (Language of the case: German)                      As a result of two accidents, in January 1978 and January
                                                                   1983 , the applicant, who is a former official of the
                                                                   Commission, is entitled to a partial invalidity rate of 10 %
An action against the Council of the European Union and            and an additional invalidity rate of 5 % . Since his state of
Commission of the European Communities was brought                 health had deteriorated, he submitted a request that his case
before the Court of First Instance of the European                 be re-examined . On completion of the procedure set out in
Communities on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle,                   the Staff Regulations, the Commission proposed that he be
Kluse-Ahlen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by          granted a permanent partial invalidity rate of 8 % ; it asked
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten,         for the number of his bank account, which could be credited
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte,               with a sum corresponding to a permanent partial invalidity
Miinster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         rate of 3% , representing the deterioration of his state of
Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .                 health by comparison with the findings of the last Medical
                                                                   Committee which convened on 20 March 1989 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The applicant claims that that constitutes an infringement of
                                                                   Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1 9 et seq. of
1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant           the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
    SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 March                Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
     1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM
                                                                   Occupational Disease. He also claims that the contested
     81 159,764, together with interest thereon at 8 % from        decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
     19 May 1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the
    proceedings;
                                                                   The applicant states in particular that an opinion given by
                                                                   the Medical Committee plainly affirmed a continuing state
2 . Join the present action to that aleady pending in Case         of 8 % permanent invalidity. That opinion was elucidated in
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                   the additional opinion given by the Medical Committee on
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     26 November 1993 where it was made clear that the
                                                                   discrepancy between the rate of permanent invalidity
                                                                   decided by an expert appointed in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                    medical procedure and that decided by the Medical
                                                                   Committee itself is explained by the fact that the Committee
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        considered that the applicant had a pre-existing
Case T-20/94 .                                                     condition.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the decision in dispute is vitiated
                                                                   by a manifest error of assessment in so far as it restricts to