CELEX: C1998/151/20
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV against the Council of the European Union (Case T-43/98)

16.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/9
Communities Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and                              of 24 March 1998
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
25 March 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:          in Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau and Others
                                                                                     v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Remuneration
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                   statements Ð Inadmissibility Ð Time-limits Ð New
                                                                                   substantial fact Ð Time-bar)
                                                                                            (98/C 151/19)
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                   In Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau, Jeremiah
                                                                   Cadogan, Madeleine Mesenburg, Rainer Moriarty, Anne-
                                                                   Marie Nilles, Teresa Rodrigues, Fernando Simoes, Jean-
                                                                   Louis Spellini, Jeanne Pica-Borruto and Nicole Schulte,
                                                                   officials of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                   Communities,       residing    respectively  in   Bertrange
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          (Luxembourg),         Steinsel     (Luxembourg),       Biwer
                                                                   (Luxembourg), Colmar-Berg (Luxembourg), Mamer
                       (Second Chamber)                            (Luxembourg), Mondercange (Luxembourg), Munsbach
                       of 12 March 1998                            (Luxembourg), Bascharage (Luxembourg), Thionville
                                                                   (France) and Leudelange (Luxembourg), represented by
in Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu v. Council of the                 Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                     European Union (1)                            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange v.
(Economic and monetary policy Ð Council Regulation on              the European Parliament (Agents: Manfred Peter and
certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro        Yannis Pantalis) Ð application for the annulment of the
Ð Replacement of the name ecu' provided for by                    express decisions rejecting the applicants' requests for
Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name euro' Ð                 reimbursement of the sums deducted from their household
     Action for annulment Ð Manifest inadmissibility)              allowance pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff
                         (98/C 151/18)                             Regulations of officials of the European Communities on
                                                                   the ground of the household grant received by their
                                                                   spouses under the collective agreement covering
                                                                   Luxembourg bank employees, and, so far as may be
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   necessary, of the decisions of 15 May and 27 July 1997
                                                                   expressly rejecting their complaints, the Court of First
                                                                   Instance    (Second       Chamber),     composed   of:    A.
In Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu, Member of the                    Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
European Parliament, resident in Chelles (France),                 Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 24 March
represented by Alexandre Varaut, of the Paris Bar, 9 Rue           1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Alfred de Vigny, Paris, against Council of the European
Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ and Ignacio Díez Parra)
Ð application for the annulment of Council Regulation              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June on certain provisions relating
to the introduction of the euro (OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1)        2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy            (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 12 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly
                                                                   Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free
    inadmissible.
                                                                       Zone) NV against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                           (Case T-43/98)
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                                               (98/C 151/20)
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 151/10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.5.98
Communities on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free                   3. Article 240(1) and (3) of Decision 91/482/EEC
Zone), established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by                  precludes an amendment of that Decision after
G. van der Wal, lawyer with right of audience before the                 1 March 1995 or, at least, an amendment with effect
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service                   from 1 December 1997;
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, of the
Luxembourg Bar, 31 Grand-Rue.                                       4. breach of the principle of legal certainty (principle of
                                                                         legitimate expectations): absence of transitional period
                                                                         and transitional measures;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    5. insufficient and incomplete statement of reasons.
1. annul Council Decision 97/803/EC (1) or, at least, the
    amendments to Articles 101, 102 and 108 of Council
                                                                    For the reasons set out in pleas 1 to 5 above, the applicant
    Decision 91/482/EEC (2) and to Article 6 of Annex II
                                                                    considers Decision 97/803/EC, or at least the restrictions
    to Decision 91/482/EEC and the insertion of
                                                                    on imports contained therein, to be a serious breach of
    Article 108b into Decision 91/482/EEC (paragraphs 27
                                                                    superior rules of law for the protection of the applicant's
    to 32 of Decision 97/803/EC);
                                                                    interests.
2. hold that the Community is responsible for the loss              The applicant brings this action as a separate action in
    suffered by Emesa as a result of the fact that the              addition to the application for annulment lodged by it
    importation of sugar from the OCT into the                      (T-44/98).
    Community has been prevented or restricted since
    1 December 1997 as a consequence of Decision 97/                (1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.
    803/EC;                                                         (2) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1. Corrigendum OJ L 15, 23.1.1993,
                                                                        p. 33.
3. order the parties to reach closer agreement as to the
    extent of Emesa's loss and, if no agreement can be
    reached in that respect, order the continuation of
    proceedings within a period to be specified by the
    Court of First Instance in order to determine the
    extent of the loss or, at least order the Community to          Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free
    pay the provisionally estimated and still to be                 Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
    estimated loss referred to in paragraphs 185 to 197 of                                   Communities
    the application; in the alternative order the                                          (Case T-44/98)
    Community to pay fair compensation, to be
                                                                                            (98/C 151/21)
    determined by the Court of First Instance, plus interest
    at the rate specified in paragraph 97;
                                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
4. order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 10 March 1998
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    by Emesa Sugar (Free Zone), established in Oranjestad,
                                                                    Aruba, represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer with a right
The applicant seeks compensation for the loss which it              of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with
claims to have suffered as a result of the restrictions on          an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
the importation of sugar of OCT origin introduced by the            A. May, of the Luxembourg Bar, 31 Grand-Rue.
decision referred to in point 1 of the forms of order
sought. It considers those articles to be contrary to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community law on five grounds:
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission's Decision of 23 December
1. breach of the locking mechanism', whereby                            1997 (VI/51329),
    Community law precludes the introduction by the
    Community of non-temporary restrictions on trade                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    between the OCT and the Community, as a result of                    proceedings.
    which certain benefits laid down in the OCT decisions
    are (partially) withdrawn;
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. breach of the principle of proportionality, since Ð in           In the aforementioned Decision the Commission informed
    so far as is justified in law and in fact Ð temporary           the Hoofdproductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten on the
    measures should be adopted, rather than permanent               basis of the third paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation
    structural restrictions;                                        (EC) No 2553/97 (1) that the applicant's application dated