CELEX: C1995/208/63
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38 other applicants against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-112/95)

12 . 8 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/29
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 25 April 1995 by Benjamin Laurence Lay,               Communities on 25 April 1 995 by Donald George Gage and
represented by Richard Gordon QC and Joanne Keddie,                  David John Gage, represented by Richard Gordon QC and
Solicitor, Dawson & Co, 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn,                 Joanne Keddie, Solicitor, Dawson & Co, 2 New Square,
London WC2A 3RZ, England .                                           Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ, England .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         The applicants claim that the Court should :
— declare that the decision of the Council and/or the
                                                                     — declare that the decision of the Council and/or the
     Commission of 13 February 1995 declining
     non-contractual liability in respect of the application by          Commission of 13 February 1995 declining
     the applicant for measures providing compensation for               non-contractual liability in respect of the application by
     himself, and the group of SLOM 3 producers, is null                 the applicants for measures providing compensation for
     and/or void and of no effect and/or annul the said                  them, and the group of SLOM 3 producers, is null and/or
     decision;                                                           void and of no effect and/or annul the said decision;
— declare that the Council and/or the Commission have                — declare that the Council and/or the Commission have
     failed to implement a Regulation or take such other                 failed to implement a Regulation or take such other
     measures to introduce compensation for the applicant                measures to introduce compensation for the applicants
     and the group of SLOM 3 producers;                                  and the group of SLOM 3 producers;
— order that the costs of these proceedings be borne by the          — order that the costs of these proceedings be borne by the
     defendants .                                                        defendants .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a SLOM 3 dairy producer, complains that no
arrangements have been made by the Community                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
institutions to make available for this category of milk             raised in Case T-107/95 .
producers compensation measures similar to those
introduced for SLOM 1 and 2 producers pursuant to
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 .
According to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 , producers
who were allocated a special reference quantity under
Article 3a, pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 , are
excluded from claiming compensation in relation to their             Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38
allocation of SLOM 3 quota .                                         other applicants against the Council of the European Union
                                                                         and the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant submits that this exclusion of the group of                                   ( Case T-l 12/95 )
SLOM 3 producers represents a serious violation of a                                           95/C 208/63 )
legitimate expectation of compensation for the period from
the end of his non-marketing scheme to the date on which he
received an allocation of SLOM 3 quota . Such a failure to                          (Language of the case: German)
provide for compensation is contrary to the principles of
Community law of respect for property and of
non-discrimination between equivalent producers.                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 8 May 1995 by Peter Dethlefs and 38 other
                                                                     applicants , of Groven, Federal Republic of Germany . The
                                                                     applicants are represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild
                                                                     Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schultze and Dr
Action brought on 25 April 1995 by Donald George Gage                Winfried Flaneklaus , of Münster ( Federal Republic of
and David John Gage against the Council of the European              Germany), whose address for service in Luxembourg is at
Union and the Commission of the European                             the Chambers of Dupong & Associates, 14a Rue des
                          Communities                                Bains .
                       ( Case T-108/95 )
                         ( 95/C 208/62
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
                (Language of the case: English)                      — order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                          applicants in respect of the period between the expiry of
An action against the Council of the European Union and                   the two-month period for acceptance contained in
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    Article 14 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 8 . 95
    22 July 1993 and 3 August 1994 ( or, in the case of three       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    of the applicants, 29 June 1994 ) interest amounting to
    8 % of the amount of compensation paid to them in
    addition to 8 % thereon from delivery of the                    In connection with its investigation of European cement
    judgment,                                                       producers ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), the
                                                                    Commission asked Cementir to produce figures for its
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings           invoicing of grey cement and clinker for 1992 and 1993 . In
    and in particular the lawyers' costs .                          compliance with that request, Cementir communicated to
                                                                    the Commission figures which erroneously included
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 amounts relating to supplies of goods and services that were
                                                                    completely different from sales of grey cement and clinker.
                                                                    Cementir became aware of the error only on examining the
The applicant producers, who accepted the compensation              Decision which concluded that investigation ( Commission
offered to them by the competent German authority within            Decision No 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 ), whereupon
the two-month period under Article 14 of Council                    it informed the Commission that the invoicing figures
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 providing for an offer of             previously supplied were too high by reason of an
compensation to certain producers of milk and milk                  accounting error . At the same time, the company attached
products temporarily prevented from carrying on their               an accountants' certificate identifying and quantifying the
trade, are claiming compensation for the damage suffered by         amounts erroneously added to the cement invoices and
them on the ground that the interest on delayed payment             determining the exact invoicing figure which the
provided for in Article 12 of that Regulation in the amount         Commission should have used in calculating the fine
of 8 % of the amount of compensation was not paid for the           imposed on Cementir .
whole of the period in respect of which they were entitled .
The Commission substantiated its refusal to pay the interest
claimed by the fact that the applicants were too late in
withdrawing their proceedings for compensation brought              By letter from the Director-General for Competition of
before the Court in 1990 .                                          2 March 1995 , the Commission rejected that request for
                                                                    rectification . That decision of rejection        forms the
The applicants take the view that the payment of the interest       subject-matter of the present action .
at issue cannot depend on the date of withdrawal of
proceedings, which is merely a formal step, since no such
condition is contained in Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 .           Cementir argues that the decision should be annulled for the
                                                                    following reasons :
                                                                    — In its decision, the Commission took into consideration,
                                                                        for the calculation of the fine imposed on Cementir,
                                                                        invoicing which was erroneous because it included
Action brought on 10 May 1995 by Societa Cementerie del                 amounts that had nothing to do with sales of grey
Tirreno SpA against the Commission of the European                      cement and clinker, the subject-matter of the dispute .
                         Communities                                    The Commission 's assertions in its letter of 2 March
                      ( Case T-l 16/95 )                                1995 , implicitly acknowledging the error in calculation
                                                                        but attempting to dispute its relevance for the purposes
                        ( 95/C 208/64 )                                 of determining the fine and thus for the request for
                                                                        rectification, appear to be unfounded and irrelevant.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    — The Commission 's refusal to amend the amount of the
An action against the Commission of the European                        fine on the basis of the corrected invoicing figures,
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                      which, moreover, the Commission has not disputed,
Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 1995 by                  seriously penalizes Cementir without justification. In the
 Societa Cementerie del Tirreno SpA ('Cementir'), having its            event, the fine has been calculated on the basis of
registered office in Rome, represented by Gian Michele                  erroneous figures and is thus disproportionate; it has
 Roberti and Antonio Tizzano, both of the Naples Bar, with              also been calculated on        a different    and    more
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                unfavourable basis than         that used      for   other
 Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert l cr.                                      undertakings which merely communicated the figures
                                                                        for grey cement sales, thereby breaching the principle of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            equality of treatment.
— annul the decision of rejection contained in the
     Commission's letter of 2 March 1995 , and
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .