CELEX: C2002/233/57
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-231/02: Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli and the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) against the Commission of the European Communities

C 233/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.9.2002
Action brought on 31 July 2002 by Osman Ocalan on                              considered under the Regulation must be presently
behalf of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly                        engaged in terrorism. In fact, since July 1999, the PKK
on behalf of Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) against                         has dropped its demand for Kurdish independence and
               the Council of the European Union                               has merely sought the recognition, through peaceful and
                                                                               political means,
                         (Case T-229/02)
                                                                          —    Breach of internationally recognised right of self-determi-
                                                                               nation, of cultural, civil and political rights.
                         (2002/C 233/56)
                                                                          —    Breach of fundamental rights of expression and associ-
                   (Language of the case: English)                             ation.
                                                                          —    Breach of other principles of Community Law such as
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        proportionality, certainty, equality and right to a fair
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     hearing.
Communities on 31 July 2002 by Osman Ocalan on behalf of
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly on behalf of                —    Misuse of power, in that the Council’s inclusion of the
Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), represented by Mark                         PKK in the list in question should be as a result of
Muller, barrister, Edward Grieves, barrister, instructed by                    political pressure from Turkey and not as a result of any
Gareth Pierce, partner at Birnberg, Peirce and partners, 14                    meaningful application of the aforesaid criteria to the
Inverness Street, London NW1 7HJ, UK.                                          facts.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     declare void the Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May
      2002 and the attendant decision dated 17 June 2002 in
      respect of its proscription of the PKK,
—     alternatively declare Regulation 2508/2001 illegal in
      respect of its application to the applicants,
                                                                          Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli and
                                                                          the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) against
—     order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
      applicants in the present proceedings,
—     order the Council to pay damages.                                                            (Case T-231/02)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 233/57)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
The present Application is brought for partial annulement of
decisions 2002/334/EC and its successor 2002/460/EC, which
places PKK upon the EU terrorist list. These decisions were
made pursuant to the challenged Regulation no 2580/2001.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
On support of its conclusions, the Applicants submit the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
following grounds:                                                        European Communities on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli
                                                                          and the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO), rep-
                                                                          resented by Ugo Scuro, lawyer.
—     Failure to apply the criteria to the correct facts and/or
      have regard to the law of armed conflict where relevant.
      It is stated on this topic that the Council has imposed a
      ban upon a non-existent (recently disolved), organisation,          The applicants claim that the Court should:
      which, by definition, was incapable of being presently or
      in the future engaged in terrorism. Alternatively, if which
      is denied, the PKK is held to continue to exist as an               —    annul in its entirety Commission Regulation (EC)
      organisation, the Council wholly failed to adhere to the                 No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards
      requirement that any putative organisation required to be                for olive oil, alternatively Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 thereof.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Communities on 2 August 2002 by Kharis Alexandratos
                                                                          and Maria Panagiotou, resident in Brussels, represented by
                                                                          K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants, being the President of AIFO (Associazione
Italiana Frantoiani Oleari) and that association itself, seek
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil ( 1).
                                                                          —     allow the application;
In support of their claims, they plead infringement of
Article 33, the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) and                  —     annul the contested measures so that the defendant is
Articles 153, 157 and 253 of the EC Treaty. They maintain                       obliged to allow the applicants to sit the oral tests;
in that regard that the contested regulation favours the
maintenance of the dominant positions occupied by large                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
undertakings in the sector concerned, thereby impeding the
development of small and medium-sized undertakings, and
that it does not provide consumers with guarantees as to the
provenance and authenticity of the product. In particular, the            Pleas in law and main arguments
regulation provides that the labelling is to bear information on
the category of olive oil concerned, but that information is
inadequate to guarantee the intrinsic quality of the product.             This is an action challenging the decision of the selection
More specifically, it provides that the designation of origin of          board for Council Open Competition A/393 to award the
virgin and extra virgin olive oils is to be purely optional,              applicants a fail mark in one of the written tests and not to
whereas, for consumers, the geographical origin of the raw                allow them to sit the oral tests.
materials is invariably a point of major importance. The
regulation requires the product to be presented to the final
consumer in packaging of a maximum capacity of five litres,               The applicants plead infringement of the first paragraph of
to the prejudice of small operators such as pressers, who                 Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal
generally sell the product in bulk on the spot.                           treatment. They contend that the infringement is aggravated
                                                                          by the defendant’s refusal to grant requests made by them
                                                                          seeking information concerning the guidelines and criteria for
Moreover, the contested regulation does not provide adequate
                                                                          marking their papers and comparing them with those of the
guarantees as to the provenance and authenticity of the
product, thus impeding the marketing of types of oil which                successful candidates.
are of higher quality and are more susceptible to direct control
by the consumer, such as that sold directly by the presser.               Furthermore, in the applicants’ submission that refusal renders
                                                                          the contested measures liable to annulment also by reason of
From another standpoint, and contrary to the objective of                 breach of the duty to state reasons for measures adversely
the common agricultural policy, the contested regulation                  affecting them and of the principle of transparency in conjunc-
discourages the distribution of high-quality olive oil such as            tion with Article 255 EC concerning access to documents.
that marketed directly by pressers, and acts as a disincentive
to productivity, technical progress and rational agricultural
development.
( 1) OJ L 155 of 14.6.2002, p. 27.
                                                                          Action brought on 5 August 2002 by Strongline A/S
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                                       Market
Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Kharis Alexandratos                                            (Case T-235/02)
and Maria Panagiotou against the Council of the European
                               Union
                                                                                                  (2002/C 233/59)
                         (Case T-233/02)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
                         (2002/C 233/58)
                    (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 5 August 2002 by Strongline A/S,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   represented by Mr Jacob S. Ørndrup at Gorrissen, Federspiel,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                Kierkegaard in Copenhagen, Denmark.