CELEX: C2001/200/108
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-78/01: Action brought on 30 March 2001 by INNOVA — Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v Commission of the European Communities

14.7.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 200/57
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 2 March 2001 by Saffron Investments                     The Court of First Instance dismissed the applications while
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                      slightly reducing the fines (2). As a result of that judgment,
                                 ties                                     CMBT Investments N.V. (later known as Saffron Investments
                                                                          N.V), to which CMB Transport N.V.’s obligation to pay the fine
                                                                          had been transferred, and Dafra Lines A/S paid a total amount
                           (Case T-50/01)                                 of EUR 12 033 177,49, covering the amount of the fine plus
                                                                          interest as from the date of the judgment.
                         (2001/C 200/107)
                                                                          The Court of Justice later annulled Articles 6 and 7 of the
                                                                          Cewal Decision in so far as they imposed a fine on CMB N.V.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        and on Dafra Lines A/S (3). As a result of that judgment, the
                                                                          Commission reimbursed the applicant the amount of EUR
                                                                          12 033 177,49 which had originally been paid. However, the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Commission did not pay any interest or reimburse the costs of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the bank guarantee that had initially been obtained in order to
European Communities on 2 March 2001 by Saffron Invest-                   cover the amount of the fines and its interests.
ments N.V., represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Isabelle
Buelens, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels                  By letter of 29 December 2000, the Commission replied to
(Belgium).                                                                the applicant’s request for payment of interest and the costs
                                                                          relating to the bank guarantees, stating that it had no obligation
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               to pay such interest or to refund the costs for the bank
                                                                          guarantees.
—     annul the decision of 29 December 2000 of the Com-
      mission, refusing to pay interest (and in particular interest       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s
      at a rate of 11,25 % pending an appeal and at a rate of             decision and submits that the Commission has infringed Article
      13,25 % thereafter) on an amount of 12 033 177,49                   233 EC (ex Article 176), the principle of proportionality, the
      EUR, representing the fines and accrued late payment                principle of unjust enrichment and the fundamental principle
      interest paid to the Commission and refusing to reimburse           of non-discrimination. Alternatively, it seeks compensation
      the expenses incurred in providing a bank guarantee in              under Articles 235 and 288 EC for damage incurred as a result
      order to cover the amount of the fines and interest until           of the enforcement of the Cewal Decision, as subsequently
      payment on 16 December 1996;                                        annulled in regard to CMB N.V. and Dafra Lines A/S.
—     in the alternative, order the Commission, on the basis of
      Articles 235 and 288 EC, to pay an amount of EUR                    (1) Decision of 23.12.1992, Cewal, OJ L 34 of 10.2.1993, p. 20.
      5 028 037,17 as compensation for damage incurred;                   (2) Judgment of 8.10.1996, in Joined Cases T-24/93-T26/96 and
                                                                              T-28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v
                                                                              Commission [1996] ECR II-1201.
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay default interest          (3) Judgment of 16.3.2000 in Joined Cases C-395/96 P and 396/93 P
      on that amount from the date of the judgment of the                     Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v Commission
      Court, at a rate applied by the European Monetary                       [not yet available in all languages].
      Cooperation Fund on its operation in EURO as deter-
      mined on the day on which the judgment is adopted plus
      one and a half points;
—     order the Commission to bear the costs of the present
      proceedings.
                                                                          Action brought on 30 March 2001 by INNOVA —
                                                                          Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
In its Cewal Decision (1), the Commission imposed a fine of                                           (Case T-78/01)
ECU 9 600 000 on CMB N.V. and a fine of ECU 200 000 on
Dafra Lines A/S.                                                                                    (2001/C 200/108)
An action was brought against the decision by CMB N.V. and
its separate legal entity for liner business, CMB Transport N.V.,                             (Language of the case: French)
on the one hand, and Dafra Lines A/S, on the other hand. Bank
guarantees were provided for the amount of the fine and                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
interests by both parties.                                                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 30 March
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/58                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
2001 by INNOVA — Centro Euromediterraneo per lo Svilup-                  its obligation to pay the grants due in connection with the Una
po Sostenibile, established in Calatafimi, Italy, represented by         Festa per Aristofane project by reason of non-performance —
Denis Waelbroeck and Jennifer Waldron, Lawyers.                          which is not admitted — of obligations relating to another
                                                                         project. Nor can the suspension of payment be seen as a penalty
                                                                         within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
                                                                         2988/95 (3).
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance, should:
                                                                         Finally, neither of the contracts provides for set-off and set-off
—     In the first place,                                                is not authorised by any provision governing the programmes
                                                                         concerned.
      —     Order the Commission to pay the grant which it
            undertook to pay under the contract concluded on             In support of its claim for annulment, the applicant claims,
            28 January 2000 in relation to the Una Festa per             inter alia, that the decision is illegal, in that it is ultra vires,
            Aristofane project,                                          lacks a proper statement of reasons, infringes the applicant’s
                                                                         rights of defence and infringes the principle of proportionality.
      —     Order the Commission to pay interest on that sum;
                                                                         (1) OJ 1999 C 163, p. 3.
—     In the alternative,                                                (2) Based on Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                             of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000
                                                                             Programme (OJ 2000 C 63, p. 1).
      —     Annul the Commission’s decision to suspend pay-              (3) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
            ments in respect of the second and final phases of               1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
            the grant contract in relation to the Una Festa per              interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
            Aristofane project, notified to INNOVA by letter
            from Mrs Efterpi Verigaki of 25 January 2001,
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in suppport
                                                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                                    (Case T-96/01)
In June 1999 the Commission published a call for tenders (1) for
experimental events under the ‘Culture 2000’ programme (2). In
December 1999 the Commission approved a project drawn                                             (2001/C 200/109)
up by the applicant which provided for the organisation of an
event entitled Una Festa per Aristofane the purpose of which
was to spread and increase young people’s awareness of their                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
common European heritage.
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
After receiving the first part of the grant, the applicant sent the      4 May 2001 by Rodolfos Maslias, official of the European
Commission a request for payment of the second instalment                Parliament, represented by Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer,
and, later, for payment of the balance of the financial assistance       Sagia Chambers, Likavittou 5, Athens 106 72.
granted to the project. In reply the Commission informed the
applicant that the final payment had been blocked because of             The applicant claims that the Court should:
an order for recovery of a larger sum from the applicant. That
order relate to another contract between the parties, which              —     annul:
had been terminated by the Commission. The applicant
instituted proceedings before the Belgian courts to have the                   (1) the decision of the defendant of 20 October 2000
Commission’s decision to terminate the contract annulled.                            to stop unilaterally (or, in the alternative, not to allow
                                                                                     at all) the exchange of officials of 11 September
                                                                                     2000 with the Greek Ministry of Culture (on the
                                                                                     basis of which the applicant, as an official of the
The applicant claims that the Commission is in breach of its                         defendant, was exchanged with an official of the
contractual and legislative obligations. The contracts are                           Ministry of Culture);
separate and non-performance of obligations under one con-
tract cannot justify the suspension of obligations arising from                (2) the decision of the defendant not to pay the
the other. No provision of either contract or of the regulations                     applicant his rightful remuneration for the period
governing those contracts allows the Commission to suspend                           from 16 September 2000 to 15 November 2000;