CELEX: C2003/239/46
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-276/03: Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola "Le Canne" srl against the Commission of the European Communities

4.10.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 239/25
The present action is directed against Commission Regulation               Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola
(EC) No 1065/97 of 12 June 1997 supplementing the Annex                    ‘Le Canne’ srl against the Commission of the European
to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-                                            Communities
graphical indications and designations of origin under the
procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 ( 1), insofar as it concerns the rules governing the                                     (Case T-276/03)
use of the PGI ‘Prociutto di Norcia’ adopted by the Commission.
                                                                                                    (2003/C 239/46)
The applicant points out, first and foremost, that Regulation                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
No 1065/97 contains no reference to the rules which the
Commission adopted and which govern the production of
‘Prosciutto di Norcia’. As regards raw materials, the rules
merely provide, in Article 3, that the meat must come from                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
farms rearing cross-bred selected white race pigs, with no                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
reference to where such farms must be situated. The rules were             European Communities on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agrico-
published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic.                 la ‘Le Canne’ srl, represented by G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The national authorities competent in the matter have, how-
ever, enjoined the company which prepares and ages the                     —     declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty,
prosciutto to halt any processing of meat from farms outside                     that, by failing to adopt all the measures and to take all
Italy on the basis that the text of the scheme approved by the                   the steps required to comply with the judgment of
Commission for the PGI in question lays down a similar                           5 March 2002 (Case T-241/00) of the Court of First
prohibition.                                                                     Instance, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                 under Community law;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay damages which the appli-
                                                                                 cant alleges it has sustained in a sum not less than the
In support of its claim, the applicant argues:                                   unpaid amount of the subsidy, together with interest at
                                                                                 the rate charged to the applicant by the banking system
                                                                                 from the date of the last part payment of the subsidy to
—     Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of                     the date when the balance due is paid;
      14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
      cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      ucts and foodstuffs (2);
—     Infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty on
      the freedom of imports and of the rules for the protection           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the functioning of the internal market (Articles 3 and
      4 of the Treaty);
                                                                           The present action was brought because of a reduction in the
                                                                           amount of the contribution paid by the Community to help
—     breach of the principles of free competition and breach              finance various works of modernisation and organisation of
      of the prohibition on introducing measures which favour              the applicant’s fish farms. The reduction was annulled by
      national undertakings;                                               judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-10/98 P (1). By
                                                                           judgment of 5 March 2002 ( 2) a further decision reducing the
                                                                           amount of the contribution was annulled on the ground that
                                                                           the Commission had failed to assess whether the project
—     the existence of defects in the inquiry procedure which
                                                                           actually carried out could be regarded as productive and
      led the Commission to approve the rules.
                                                                           consistent with initial plans.
                                                                           The applicant asserts that after the second judgment had
( 1) OJ L 156 of 13.6.1997, p. 5.
                                                                           acquired the authority of a final decision the Commission
( 2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                           endeavoured to conduct the necessary assessment, making an
                                                                           inspection in loco. However, after making its inspection on 16
                                                                           and 17 September 2002 the Commission failed to express a
                                                                           position and deferred sine dine payment of the balance of the
                                                                           subsidy.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/26                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           4.10.2003
The applicant argues in this connection that, in this case, the            The applicant states in that regard that the contested decision
facts of the dispute, which dates back to 1995, are brought                replaces another decision which the Court of First Instance
before the Community court for a third time, yet the Com-                  of the European Communities annulled by judgment of
mission has still not properly completed what it ought to have             20 September 2001 (1).
done in 1995, namely to conduct an assessment of whether
ascertained variations from the object, structure and purpose
of the original subsidised project are in conformity.                      In support of here claims, the applicant puts forward the
                                                                           following pleas:
( 1) ECR I-6831.
( 2) Case T-241/00 ECR II-1251.                                            —      Breach of the rights of defence, given the absence of a
                                                                                  complete file.
                                                                           —      Manifest error in the assessment of the facts and, in
                                                                                  particular, in the assessment of the place of main
                                                                                  occupation or habitual residence during the reference
                                                                                  period. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the
                                                                                  Commission ignored the fact that the applicant’s stay in
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                                  Brussels never exceeded the reference period and, further
Langarica against Commission of the European Com-                                 in the alternative, that it did not apply the ‘work done for
                              munities                                            another State’ exception in Article 4 of Annex VII to the
                                                                                  Staff Regulations.
                          (Case T-283/03)
                                                                           (1 ) Case T-344/99 Recalde Langarica v Commission [2001] ECR-SC
                                                                                IA-183; II-833).
                          (2003/C 239/47)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                     Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl
Langarica, residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón                      against the Commission of the European Communities
García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.
                                                                                                     (Case T-287/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                     (2003/C 239/48)
—      annul the Decision of 8 May 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
       complaint seeking formal and definitive annulment of
       the decision withdrawing her entitlement under the                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
       Staff Regulations to the expatriation allowance and
       confirmation of her entitlement to that allowance and
       also to other related allowances; and
—      order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl,
                                                                           represented by M.A. Calabrese.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is brought against the decision whereby the
appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint seeking            —      annul the Commission’s letter of 30 April 2002 D/52107,
formal and definitive annulment of the decision refusing her                      COMP/G1/D(02)400 PI/cpb, of which the applicant has
entitlement under the Staff Regulations to the expatriation                       not had sight, whereby the Commission consulted the
allowance and confirmation of her entitlement to that allow-                      Italian authorities, inviting them to express their assent
ance, together with other related allowances, such as, specifi-                   or dissent to the release to a party other than the applicant
cally, the allowance for the costs of installation at her present                 of the documents of which the applicant has requested
place of work.                                                                    copies;