CELEX: C2001/045/46
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-359/00: Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European Communities

10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (4) order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                               ings.
The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of
17 August 2000 to stop paying the household allowance and
to deduct from the applicant’s monthly pension for the period            Pleas in law and main arguments
from April 2000 to January 2001 the household allowance
alleged by the Commission to have been unduly paid since                 Free Trade Foods NV (‘FTF’) owns a sugar factory on Curaçao.
24 September 1998, the date of the death of the applicant’s              In 2000 it intended to process approximately 50 000 tonnes.
spouse.
                                                                         FTF is entirely dependent on the processing of C-sugar
The applicant claims that, since the death of his wife, he has           originating in the Community, which, as a result of EC/OCT
been in a situation of the type referred to in Article 1(c) of           cumulation, obtains an OCT origin and can thus be imported
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and that he therefore                into the Community free from duty.
continues to be entitled to receive the household allowance.
                                                                         As a result of the third safeguard measure a very limited quota
                                                                         of 4 848 tonnes now applies.
                                                                         FTF sets out the following four pleas in law in support of
                                                                         annulment of the third safeguard measure and payment of
Action brought on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade                         compensation:
Foods NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   1.    Infringement of Article 109 of the OCT Decision;
                         (Case T-350/00)                                 2.    Infringement of the order of priority established in the
                                                                               EC Treaty in favour of OCT goods;
                          (2001/C 45/45)
                                                                         3.    Infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                               guard Measures (concluded within the framework of the
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              WTO), together with infringement of Article 300(7) EC;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                4.    Illegality of Regulation No 2553/97.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade
Foods NV, having its registered office in Curaçao (Netherlands           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September
                                                                             2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard
Antilles), represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, of the
                                                                             measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories
Trenité Van Doorne Chambers, Rotterdam and Brussels, with                    of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of De                   2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64).
Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods to be
      admissible;
(2) annul Regulation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000                   Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organización
      introducing safeguard measures for imports from the                de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congela-
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products        dores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (hereinafter ‘the third                                      Communities
      safeguard measure’) (1);
                                                                                                  (Case T-359/00)
(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage incurred
      by Free Trade Foods as a result of the third safeguard
      measure, that the parties reach agreement on the extent                                      (2001/C 45/46)
      of the damage incurred by Free Trade Foods, and, in the
      absence of agreement on that matter, that the procedure
      be continued, within a period to be set by the Court, to                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
      determine the extent of that damage, and order the
      Community to pay compensation for the damage as                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      provisionally estimated and still to be estimated; in the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      alternative, it should order the Community to pay such             European Communities on 24 November 2000 by the Orga-
      compensation as the Court may reasonably determine,                nización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
      plus applicable interest from the date of the document             Congeladores (OPAGAC), whose registered office is at Madrid,
      instituting these proceedings until the date of full pay-          represented by Jesús Casas Robla and Vanessa Arrastia de la
      ment;                                                              Sierra.
 ---pagebreak--- C 45/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              provides compensation which offsets and stabilises the income
                                                                         of fishery producers can only mean that, whenever a producer
                                                                         switches from one producers’ organisation to another, the
—     annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Article 2(2) of, and            bases for calculation laid down in Article 18(4) of the basic
      the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1926/2000               regulation must be amended to the same extent.
      of 11 September 2000 and Article 2(2) of, and the annex
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1103/2000 of 25 May
      2000 providing for the granting of compensation to
      producers’ organisations in respect of tuna delivered to           The applicant further alleges misuse of powers by the Com-
      the processing industry from 1 October to 31 December              mission.
      1999 (OJ 2000 L 125, p. 18 and OJ 2000 L 230, p. 10);
—     in the alternative, annul such articles and annexes on the         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 of 22 December 1994
      ground that the Commission misused its powers when                     amending Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common organ-
      interpreting Article 18 of the basic regulation;                       ization of the market in fishery products and aquaculture (OJ
                                                                             1994 L 350, p. 15).
—     order the Commission to provide for a new regulation
      correcting the tonnage distributed between OPAGAC and
      OPTUC in view of changes in their respective tonnage;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries
The applicant organisation explains, first and foremost, that            Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
its composition changed on 1 July 1998 when it was joined                                             Market
by two undertakings which had previously been part of
APTUC, another tuna producers’ organisation. Since then, the
registered tonnage and catches of the applicant organisation                                     (Case T-360/00)
has increased, thus changing the basis for calculating the
compensation laid down in the basic regulation (1).
                                                                                                  (2001/C 45/47)
Following publication of Regulation No 1103/2000, cited
above, the applicant became aware of the fact that compen-
sation had been distributed among producers’ organisations                                  (Language of the case: English)
without account being taken of changes to tonnages by
associations, so it then made the appropriate approaches to
the Spanish and Union authorities.
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 November 2000 by Dart
Without resolving the matter of allocations for the third                Industries Inc., represented by Kay-Uwe Jonas of Oppenhoff &
quarter of 1999, the Commission adopted Regulation                       Rädler (Cologne) Germany.
No 1926/2000, cited above, in which the allocations are, in
the view of the applicant, also erroneous.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
To date, the Commission has still not replied to the request of
the Secretarı́a General de Pesca Marı́tima for the correct               —     annul the defendant’s decision R 278/2000-1 of 22 Sep-
interpretation of the applicable legislation, so that the applicant            tember 2000;
is obliged to seek the interpretation of the basic regulations
implied in the articles of and annexes to the regulations
providing for compensation in respect of the period running              —     order that the Application No. 716597 ‘UltraPlus’ be
from 1 October to 31 December 1999.                                            referred back to OHIM to be published in accordance
                                                                               with CTMR Article 40 in respect of all the goods claimed
                                                                               therein;
In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
by the contested provisions of Article 18(4) of Regulation
No 3579/92, cited above. In its view, the fact that the measure          —     order OHIM to pay the costs.