CELEX: C2001/245/45
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-142/01: Action brought on 21 June 2001 by Organización de Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC) against Commission of the European Communities

C 245/28              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.9.2001
Action brought on 21 June 2001 by Organización de                      —     make any other appropriate order to the effect that the
Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC) against                            Commission should fulfil its obligations under
         Commission of the European Communities                               Article 233 EC and, in particular, that the Commission
                                                                              should re-examine the situation;
                        (Case T-142/01)
                                                                        —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                              pay all the costs.
                        (2001/C 245/45)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              The applicant is a Spanish frozen tunny producers’ organis-
European Communities on 21 June 2001 by Organización de                ation, whose members are associations of tunny freezer vessel
Productores de Túnidos Congelados (OPTUC), whose regis-                owners specialising in fishing for tuna outside Community
tered office is in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Ramón                waters. In its capacity as a producers’ organisation, it places
Garcia-Gallardo and Marta Moya.                                         reliance on a Community mechanism, set up in order to ensure
                                                                        supply to the Community industry and offer the necessary
                                                                        protection for producers’ income, and which consists in the
                                                                        granting of compensatory allowances in periods when prices
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             for the importation of tuna into the Community fall as a result
                                                                        of price movements in the global market. The system for
                                                                        calculating such compensation is based on the level of quarterly
—    find the present action admissible;                                deliveries of each producers’ organisation (and therefore of
                                                                        its members) with respect to the average quantities sold and
                                                                        delivered by its members during the equivalent quarter in the
—    annul the provisions adopted by the European Com-                  three preceding fishing years.
     mission reducing the quantities eligible for compensatory
     allowances in respect of OPTUC, namely:
     (a)   Commission Regulation (EC) No 584/2001 of                    The applicant contests a number of Commission regulations
           26 March 2001 amending Regulations (EC)                      which lay down the compensatory allowances for the quarters
           No 1103/2000 and (EC) No 1926/2000 providing                 for the period between 1 July 1999 and 30 September 2000
           for the granting of compensation to producers’               inasmuch as:
           organisations in respect of tuna delivered to the
           processing industry from 1 July to 30 September
           1999 and from 1 October to 31 December 1999 (1);             (a)   they review the amounts originally granted to the appli-
                                                                              cant by two earlier regulations, repealing them, on
                                                                              account of the fact that one of its members has now
     (b) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)                           become member of another producers’ organisation,
           No 585/2001 of 26 March 2001 providing for                         whose compensatory allowances have been increased to
           compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna                  the detriment of the applicant;
           delivered to the processing industry between 1 Janu-
           ary and 31 March 2000 and the annex thereto (2);
                                                                        (b) they modify one of the parameters for calculating the
                                                                              compensation due to each of the producers’ organis-
     (c)   Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)                         ations, acknowledging that the average quantities deliver-
           No 808/2001 of 26 April 2001 providing for                         ed by its members in the three preceding years — to be
           compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna                  compared with the level of deliveries in the quarter in
           delivered to the processing industry between 1 April               question — might be changed on account of the fact that
           and 30 June 2000 and the annex thereto (3); and                    one of its members has moved to another producers’
                                                                              organisation.
     (d) Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
           No 1163/2001 of 14 June 2001 providing for
           compensation to producers’ organisations for tuna            The applicant is of the view that the Commission, by making
           delivered to the processing industry between 1 July          such changes to the system, and by the way in which it has
           and 30 September 2000 (4).                                   done so, has erred in two respects:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 245/29
—      Lack of legal basis                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January                   The applicant took part in Competition COM/TB/99. He
       1998 (5), which contains the provisions in force concern-            challenges his not being placed on the reserve list for the
       ing compensatory allowances, does not lay down any                   recruitment of Administrative Assistants, Senior Administrat-
       specific rule on which the Commission might base itself              ive Assistants and Principal Administrative Assistants.
       in order to ’revise downwards’ the production averages
       for the last three fishing years in the event that one of the
       members leaves a producers’ organisation.                            In support of his application, the applicant claims breach of:
—      Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations                   —     the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                            —     the procedural guarantees afforded by the Community
       According to the legislation in force when the contested                   legal system;
       regulations were adopted and entered into force, the
       applicant legitimately expected to receive higher com-               —     essential procedural requirements and, in particular,
       pensatory allowances. Such expectations were dashed                        infringement of the rules governing the running of
       when the applicable rules were changed under the                           competitions such as those laid down in Article 3(1) of
       contested provisions.                                                      Annex II to the Staff Regulations and in the ’Guide for
                                                                                  selection boards and committees’;
( 1) OJ 2001 L 86, p 4.                                                     —     the legal framework of the competition notice; and
( 2) OJ 2001 L 86, p. 8.
( 3) OJ 2001 L 118, p. 12.
                                                                            —     the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
( 4) OJ 2001 L 159, p. 10.
( 5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 142/98 of 21 January 1998
     laying down detailed rules for granting the compensatory allow-
     ance for tuna intended for the processing industry (OJ 1998 L 17,
     p. 8).
                                                                            Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino against
                                                                                     Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                     (Case T-145/01)
Action brought on 22 June 2001 by Raymond Maxwell
      against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                     (2001/C 245/47)
                           (Case T-143/01)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                           (2001/C 245/46)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 20 June 2001 by Benito Latino,
                                                                            residing in Lauzun (France), represented by George Vander-
                                                                            sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 June 2001 by Raymond                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Maxwell, residing in Lasne (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                  10 August 2000 not to acknowledge the occupational
                                                                                  origin of his arthritic symptoms;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the consequential decisions to charge to the
—      annul the decision of the selection board for competition                  applicant the fees and incidental expenses of the doctor
       COM/TB/99 to award to the applicant for the oral test a                    appointed by the applicant to the Medical Committee
       mark too low to allow him to be placed on the reserve                      and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the third
       list;                                                                      doctor;
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.