CELEX: C1995/315/16
Language: en
Date: 1995-11-25 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 17 October 1995 in Case C-62/94 P: Mariette Turner v. Commission of the European Communities (Official - Compulsory reassignment - Non-material damage - Claim for compensation - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)

25 . 11 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 315/9
     of the judgment by persons who have not brought legal             Action brought on 29 September 1995 by the Commission
     proceedings or made an equivalent claim prior to that             of the European Communities against the Council of the
     date.                                                                                    European Union
                                                                                              ( Case C-309/95 )
(') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .                                                                ( 95/C 315/ 17 )
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 29 September 1 995 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet
                                                                       and Jean-Paul Keppenne, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                       la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       ( Second Chamber)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                      of 17 October 1995                               — annul the Council 's decision of 22 June 1995 on the
in Case C-62/94 P: Mariette Turner v. Commission of the                    granting of exceptional aid to producers of table wine in
                  European Communities ( 1 )                               France ,
(Official — Compulsory reassignment — Non-material
damage — Claim for compensation — Appeal manifestly                    — order the Council to pay the coses .
                 inadmissible and unfounded)
                           ( 95/C 315/ 16 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Misapplication of the third subparagraph of Article
                (Language of the case: French)                             93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty; abuse of process; lack of
                                                                           competence .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               The Council is not empowered to take decisions — on
          published in the European Court Reports)                         the basis of the third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                           which was extended to certain agriculturl products by a
                                                                           Regulation on the common organization of the relevant
In Case C-62/94 P : Mariette Turner, a former official of the              markets — derogating from provisions which are of
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        central importance to the machinery for the common
Brussels , represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the                     organization of the market ( COM ), where the effect of
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 those decisions is to impair the proper operation of the
the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener — appeal                    principal mechanisms of the COM . State aid which
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                 causes the purchase price of table wines delivered for
European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ) of 16 December                      preventive distillation to rise to the level of market prices
 1993 in Case T-80/92 Turner v. Commission ( 1993 ) ECR                    not only distorts competition between producers within
11-1465 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other               the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ), but it lends greater support
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                  to prices than that expressly envisaged by the COM and
Communities ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Denis                         counters the dissuasive effect expressly mentioned in the
Waelbroeck ) — the Court, composed of: G. Hirsch                           preamble to the basic Regulation, which is necessary to
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and               enable production to be controlled, and at the same time
F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                   makes the Commission 's management task impossible
R. Grass , Registrar, made an order on 17 October 1995 , the               to carry out .
 operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           If the Council wished to change the common
                                                                           organization of the market in wine in order to obtain the
 1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                              result sought, it should have followed the procedural
                                                                           rules laid down by Article 43 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                           which ensure compliance with the institutional balance
 2 . Mrs Turner is ordered to pay the costs of these                       established by the Treaty . Consequently, the contested
     proceedings.                                                          decision is vitiated by lack of competence .
 (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .                                          ( By way of subsidiary pleas )
                                                                        — Absence of 'exceptional circumstances' within the
                                                                            meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 ) of