CELEX: C1997/318/59
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 August 1997 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-230/97)

C 318/30             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
infringements not duly found to exist. In the applicant's            applicant, or where there is no national representative
view, the length of the administrative proceeding, which             organization, challenges the Council decision, set out in
could be regarded as a lack of reasonable diligence, should          Regulation ( EC ) No 1188/97, to recognize Italy as a
be considered to be a mitigating factor.                             deficit area and to fix a derived intervention price for
                                                                     white sugar produced in Italy.
Finally, the applicant pleads misapplication of Article 3 ( 1 )
of Regulation No 17 which confers on the Commission                  Owing to the fact that the derived intervention price for
only the power to prohibit abuses found to exist. The                the marketing year 1997/98 should have been fixed before
Commission may order them not to continue, as it does,               1 August 1996 , whereas the contested regulation fixed the
and not to be repeated, as it likewise does . That Article           price on the 25 June 1997, the applicant submits that the
provides no legal basis, however, for prohibiting, by way            said Regulation was adopted with unreasonable delay.
of anticipation, abuses other than the ones formally found.          Sugar manufacturers have the right to be informed in
                                                                     good time of the price at which they may sell to the
                                                                     intervention agencies the sugar produced within the quota
                                                                     and the minimum price to be paid to beet producers .
                                                                     Furthermore, the Council did not state any reasons
Action brought on 5 August 1997 by the Comite                        justifying the decision to regard Italy as a deficit area and,
Europeen des Fabricants de Sucre against the Council of              consequently, the adoption of a derived intervention price .
                    the European Union
                       ( Case T-229/97 )
                                                                     Finally, the applicant claims that the treatment of Italy as
                         ( 97/C 318/58 )                             a deficit area, when it is not, has a negative impact on the
                                                                     European industry and on the common organization of
                                                                     the market in sugar and constitutes a breach of the
               (Language of the case: English)                       principles of non-discrimination and of Community
                                                                     preference .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 August 1997 by the Comite Europeen
des Fabricants de Sucre, represented by Bernard O'Connor
and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen,
22, Rue Marie Adelaide .                                             Action brought on 5 August 1997 by Comafrica SpA
                                                                     and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  ( Case T-230/97 )
                                                                                               ( 97/C 318/59 )
— pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
     declare void Article 1 ( f) of Regulation ( EC ) No 1188/
     97 of 25 June 1997 in so far as it affects the applicant                         (Language of the case: English)
     and the European sugar manufacturers; alternatively,
     declare the said provision of the regulation void erga
     omnes,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
— request the Council to hand over all impugned                       by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd &c
     documents, information and methods at its disposal               Co ., represented by Bernard O'Connor, assisted by
     for the adoption of the Regulation, with regard to the           Bonifacio Garcia Porras, with an address for service in
     decision to consider Italy a deficit area;                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22,
                                                                      rue Marie Adelaide .
 — make any additional orders which the Court considers
     necessary, and                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should :
 — order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings .            — pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 EC, declare void
                                                                           Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1155/97 in so far as
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       it affects the applicants, or, in the alternative declare
                                                                           the said Regulation void erga omnes, on the basis that
                                                                           the Commission has acted in breach of Article 40 ( 3 )
 The applicant, an international association made up of                    of the EC Treaty and contrary to the case-law of the
 national organizations of sugar manufacturers, as well as                 Court of Justice and denied the applicants their
 individual sugar companies, where their national                          fundamental rights to property and to pursue a
 representative organization is not a member of the                        professional trade or activity,
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/31
— pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty,                 — the loss due to the lower reference quantity in the
     order the Commission to make good any damage,                        early part of the year, and
     with interest thereon, caused to the applicants by the
     wrongful adoption of Regulation ( EC ) No 1155/97,
                                                                     — the loss caused by the new Member States' arguments.
— make any additional order the Court considers
     necessary for the purposes of determining the damage
     caused to the applicants, and
                                                                     Action brought on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
                                                                         Danieau and others against the European Parliament
— declare that the Commission pay the costs incurred in
     the making of this application .                                                        ( Case T-232/97 )
                                                                                               ( 97/C 318/60 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
The applicants are members of the Dole group of                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
companies, a group engaged in the worldwide business of              before the Court of First Instance of the European
producing, processing, distributing and marketing quality            Communities on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
branded fruit products, primarily fresh fruit and                    Danieau, residing at Bertrange ( Luxembourg ), Jeremiah
vegetables and packaged fruits and nuts . The applicants             Cadogan, residing at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Madeleine
are registered as Category A operators, as defined by                Mesenburg, residing at Biwer ( Luxembourg), Rainer
Article 2 ( a ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1442/93           Moriarty, residing at Colmar-Berg ( Luxembourg), Anne-
of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the                   Marie Nilles, residing at Mamer ( Luxembourg ), Teresa
application of the arrangements for importing bananas                Rodrigues, residing at Mondercange ( Luxembourg ),
into the Community ( OJ L 142, 12 . 6 . 1993 , p, 6 ).               Fernando Simões, residing at Munsbach ( Luxembourg ),
                                                                     Jean-Louis Spellini , residing at Bascharage ( Luxembourg),
                                                                     Jeanne Pica-Borruto, residing at Thionville ( France ) and
                                                                     Nicole Schulte, residing at Leudelange ( Luxembourg),
The application concerns the administration by the                   represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique Leclercq,
Commission of the rules governing the allocation of the              Ariane Tornel and Framboise Parmentier, of the Brussels
applicants' licence entitlement for the import of bananas            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
within the third-country tariff-rate quota established by            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Article 18 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of
 13 February 1993 . It arises out of the adoption by the
 Commission of an excessively severe reduction coefficient           The applicants claim that the Court should:
 based on an incorrect reference quantity figure which
illegally reduces the applicants' licence entitlement for the        — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
 1997 marketing year.                                                     for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                          respect of household grants,
 As a result of the incorrect reference quantities, the
                                                                     — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
 applicants were denied their legal right to import bananas
 up to the maximum of their legal entitlement. In addition,               wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
 the applicants are also denied their future entitlement to                rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
 import Category A bananas for those marketing years for                   deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
 which 1997 is a reference year. This erodes and thus
 infringes the applicants' fundamental rights protected by           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 Community law, such as the right to property and the
 right to pursue a professional or trade activity. Whereas in
 Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 the Council         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 acted to ensure avoidance of erosion between Categories A
 and B, the Commission has created a system which allows              The applicants, officials of the European Parliament
 erosion of rights within each category. The loss which will          whose spouses receive a household grant, state that up
 be suffered by the applicants as a result of the                     until July 1996 the defendant deducted, pursuant to
 Commission's breach of a superior rule of law arises from:           Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of officials, the
                                                                      household grant received by their spouses from the family
                                                                      allowances to which they were entitled. In July 1996 they
 — the fact that the share of the Category A quota                    were informed that, in consequence of the judgment
      allocated to the applicants is less than it would have          delivered by the Court of First Instance on 11 June 1996
      been had the Commission calculated the reduction                in Case T-147/95 Pavan v. Parliament, and having
      coefficient using correct reference quantity figures.           considered the conditions governing the award of the