CELEX: C2001/259/24
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-154/01: Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distilleria F. Palma SpA against Commission of the European Communities

C 259/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.9.2001
Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distilleria                    this and other efforts, the proper fulfilment of the requirements
F. Palma SpA against Commission of the European Com-                       for performance laid down by the European Commission was
                            munities                                       hindered by new and unforeseeable obstacles.
                         (Case T-154/01)
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that the
                                                                           contested decision is contrary to the principle exonerating
                         (2001/C 259/24)                                   economic operators on grounds of ‘force majeure’, which is
                                                                           expressly referred to in Regulation No 416/96 (3). Thus, the
                                                                           defendant showed itself to have been perfectly aware of having
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        changed both times and means of giving effect to the tender
                                                                           offer by two subsequent regulations. Notwithstanding all this,
                                                                           and despite reasons beyond the control of the undertaking
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  which was awarded the tender, the Commission, ex abrupto,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 interpreted particularly strictly the conditions laid down, most
European Communities on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distil-                  recently, in Regulation No 416/96.
leria F. Palma SpA, represented by Francesco Caruso, lawyer.
                                                                           Finally, the extreme, unreasonable and disproportionate nature
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           of the contested decision is even more evident on careful
                                                                           consideration of the reason for the substantial security (a hefty
—     order the Commission to make good the damage allegedly               ECU 90 per hectolitre of alcohol), which the applicant lodged
      suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s            at the time, which was to guarantee that it had removed the
      unlawful action which took the form of a memorandum                  alcohol for food use. In the present case, it had pursued
      sent to the Italian Ministero delle Risorse Agricole                 the objective, in guarantee of which it had provided the
      Alimentari e Forestali in November 1996, forwarded by                abovementioned security, and there was no likelihood that the
      that ministry to Distilleria Palma on 3 February 1997;               market in alcohol for food use would be disrupted if the
                                                                           request to destroy the quantity remaining in storage had been
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                           acceded to.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (1) OJ 1990 C 296, p. 10.
                                                                           (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 of 30 September
                                                                               1993 concerning certain special sales by tender of vinous alcohol
The applicant in the present case contests the Commission’s                    held by intervention agencies, for use as motor fuel within the
                                                                               Community; OJ L 245, 01.10.1993, p. 131.
refusal, conveyed by the memorandum to the AIMA (Azienda
                                                                           (3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 416/96 of 7 March 1996
di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo — State
                                                                               amending Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 concerning certain
Organization for Interventions in the Agricultural Market) of                  special sales by tender of vinous alcohol held by intervention
11 November 1995 and forwarded by the AIMA to Distilleria                      agencies, for use as motor fuel within the Community; OJ L 59,
on 3 February 1997, to allow the destruction of the residual                   8.3.1996, p. 5.
alcohol not used in accordance with the conditions laid down
in tender No 8/90/EC (1).
It states in that connection that immediately after the award of
the tender the first problems began to arise with regard to the
disposal of the processed alcohol in accordance with the
Commission’s requirements (boycotts by the oil transport
companies, a proposal for a directive on tax exemptions for                Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
biofuels), which led to an extraordinary increase in storage               S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
costs, made it more difficult to find sites for the alcohol                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
removed from the intervention agencies, made it impossible
to remove further quantities of alcohol and had a negative
impact on the applicant’s plans for its use.                                                         (Case T-156/01)
                                                                                                    (2001/C 259/25)
Moreover, after the adoption of Regulation No 2710/93 (2) the
‘serious and persistent difficulty’, which had heavily affected
the market in recent times, and the ‘special circumstances’,
which had prompted the Commission to cancel the tenders in                                  (Language of the case: to be decided)
respect of the lots of alcohol not taken out of intervention
storage, did not change at all. The applicant, none the less,
took the initiative and removed the second lot of alcohol,                 An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
which had already been paid for since the May 1992. Despite                Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before