CELEX: C1997/094/45
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Atlantic Container Line AB and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-18/97)

22 . 3 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 94/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA, having
                                                                      its registered office at Saint Jacut du Mene ( France), and
The applicants, French companies producing veal for                   Vals SA, having its registered office in Champagne
human consumption, contest Council Regulation ( EC )                  ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( EEC ) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                   Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
market in beef and veal ( J ), in particular Article 1 (4 )
thereof, in as much as it requires the Member States to               The applicants claim that the Court should:
pay an early marketing premium the conditions and
methods of calculation of which have caused them serious
                                                                      — annul Regulation (EC ) No 2222/96 adopted on
damage .                                                                   18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                           institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
They state in that regard that, as a result of the fact that
                                                                           the act being separable from its other provisions,
Article 1 (4 ) provides, in the implementation of the said
premium, for the uniform application of a 15% reduction
in the slaughter weight in each country, based on a                   — order the Council to pay the costs .
reference parameter deriving from statistics drawn up for
1995 , the carcase premium reference figure obtainable by             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the applicants amounts to 108 kg, which weight is totally
incompatible with the normal marketing of such a carcase,             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
since the carcase weight produced prior to that measure               those relied on in Case T- 14/97 Sofivo and Others v.
was 127 kg.                                                           Council .
They further state that,
at the same time, their competitors in the Netherlands,
which is the second largest producer in Europe and
exports 95% of its production, enjoy the highest                      Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Atlantic Container
reference, enabling them to obtain the premium on the                 Line AB and others against the Commission of the
basis of a carcase weight of 138 kg, which places them in                                 European Communities
a particularly favourable competitive position in the
                                                                                                Case T-18/97)
French market. Since the carcase premium weight in that
country ( less than 138 kg) is very close to that for which                                     ( 97/C 94/45 )
demand exists in the French market, producers established
there are able to produce calves of the type sought after in                          (Language of the case: English)
the French market and to receive the premium of ECU 65
per carcase, resulting, in their view, in total disparity             An action against the Commission of the European
between both prices and products. Furthermore, the speed              Communities was brought before the Court of First
with which the measure has been introduced interferes
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 27 January
with the production previously planned, relating to                   1997 by Atlantic Container Line AB, represented by John
periods of between 22 and 24 weeks, whereas the                       Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Shaun Goodman, with
reference resulting in the premium weight of 108 kg                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
brings the fattening period down to between 15 and 17                 Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe .
weeks .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should
In support of their claims, the applicant companies plead
a breach of the principle of equality of treatment, as well
as the existence, in the present case, of an anti-competitive         — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 3414 of
situation, contrary to the second subparagraph of                          26 November 1996 relating to the Trans-Atlantic
Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                                            Conference Agreement,
(') OJ No L 296 , 21 . 11 . 1996 , p. 50 .                            — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      The applicants are 16 of the 17 liner shipping operators
                                                                      which are party to the Trans-Atlantic Conference
Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA and                   Agreement, pursuant to which they together provide
     Vals SA against the Council of the European Union                westbound and eastbound containerized liner services
                          (Case T-15/97)                              across the Atlantic Ocean for the carriage of cargo
                            ( 97/C 94/44 )                            between inland points and ports in Northern Europe and
                                                                      the United States of America .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
An action against the Council of the European Union was               Commission decision, in which the Commission withdrew
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            the applicants' immunity from fines conferred by
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/22         I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 3 . 97
notification of the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement              — order the defendant to pay him compensation equal to
on 5 July 1994 in relation to the joint exercise of rate­                the remuneration which he would have received if he
making authority in respect of the inland portions within                had been reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 (4 )
the European Community of through-intermodal transport                    ( d) of the Staff Regulations, in the first post falling
services ('European Intermodal Authority').                              vacant, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                          8 % per annum from the date when such remuneration
                                                                         became due until the date when it is paid,
The applicants claim that the contested decision does not
purport to withdraw immunity from fines in respect of
European Intermodal Authority in any other context.                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
They submit that the contested decision is unlawful on the
following grounds, maintaining that each one of these
grounds is sufficient to justify its annulment:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— the legal conditions established by the Court of Justice           Following a period of leave on personal grounds which
    for the withdrawal of immunity from fines are not met            commenced on 16 February 1991 , the applicant, a grade
    in this case,                                                    LA 7 official employed in Luxembourg, asked to be
                                                                     reinstated by fax of 15 December 1993 . He was reinstated
                                                                     in Unit G2 of the Translation Service in Luxembourg on
— the contested decision is incompatible with the order              16 February 1995 .
    of the President of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities in Case T-3 95/94 R [ 1995]
    ECR II, p. 595, upheld by the order of the President of          The applicant pleads infringement by the Commission of
    the Court of Justice in Case C-149/95 P(R),                      Article 40 (4 ) (d ) of the Staff Regulations, since it failed to
                                                                     verify the applicant's ability to satisfy the requirements of
                                                                     the two posts declared vacant in the German language
— the Commission infringed the applicants' rights of                 unit of the Translation Service in Brussels at the time
    defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of              when he asked to be reinstated, as well as three other
    the contested decision .                                         posts declared vacant in Units A2, D2 and E2 on
                                                                     20 January, 20 June and 22 November 1994.
                                                                     He further claims compensation in accordance with
                                                                     Articles 179 and 215 of the EC Treaty, since he received
                                                                     no remuneration in respect of the period from
Action brought on 29 January 1997 by Claude Richter                  15 December 1993 (the date of his request for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 reinstatement). It follows that the Commission is bound to
                        Case T-19/97)                                compensate him by paying him the remuneration which he
                                                                     would have received from the date of his request for
                         97/C 94/46 )                                reinstatement or, at the latest, from the date when the two
                                                                     posts were declared vacant, until the date of his
               (Language of the case: French)                        reinstatement, 16 February 1995 .
An action against the Commission of European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 January
1997 by Claude Richter, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                against the Commission of the European Communities
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( Case T-20/97)
SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 94/47 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting his request
    for compensation for the fault committed by it in not            An action against the Commission of the European
    reinstating the applicant in the first vacant post               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    corresponding to his grade and abilities,                        Instance of the European Communities on 30 January
                                                                     1997 by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ),
                                                                     Sofivo Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
— order the defendant to reconstitute the applicant's                established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,
    career with effect from 15 December 1993 or, at the              established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,
    latest, from the date of publication of the first notice         established at Perigueux (France ), Serval, established at
    of vacancy of a post corresponding to his grade and              Sainte Eanne (France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
    abilities,                                                       Bourgbarre ( France), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand