CELEX: C2004/059/50
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-441/03: Action brought on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma Léon Van Parys, N.V. Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

6.3.2004                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 59/31
Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Jean Arizmendi                        —     Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
and 43 other applicants against the Council of the Euro-                          expectations, in that, first, the contested provision refers
      pean Union and the Commission of the European                               to customs representation, which is a separate matter
                             Communities                                          from presentation of goods at customs which is the task
                                                                                  of the applicants, and, secondly, the monopoly was
                                                                                  abolished without any form of transitional measure.
                           (Case T-440/03)
                                                                            —     Breach of the principles of equality and proportionality,
                            (2004/C 59/49)                                        in that the abrupt opening-up of the market in presen-
                                                                                  tation of goods at customs has resulted in a draconian
                                                                                  reduction in prices, which ships brokers, who are handi-
                     (Language of the case: French)                               capped by the restrictive rules under which they operate,
                                                                                  cannot resist, in the absence of any transitional measures.
                                                                            Lastly, the applicants allege breach of the right to property, as
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                 laid down in the First Protocol to the European Convention on
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          Human Rights.
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 29 December 2003 by Jean Arizmendi and 43 other
applicants, all residing in France, represented by Jean-François            (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
Péricaud and Philippe Péricaud, lawyers.                                        establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
1.     Order the Council of the European Union and the
       Commission of the European Communities jointly and
       severally to pay to each applicant the compensation
       representing the loss suffered, together with interest at            Action brought on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma
       the legal rate from the date the application was lodged;             Léon Van Parys, N.V. Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific
                                                                            Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy
                                                                                   S.p.A. against the Commission of the European
2.     Order the Council of the European Union and the                                                  Communities
       Commission of the European Communities jointly and
       severally to pay the costs.
                                                                                                      (Case T-441/03)
                                                                                                       (2004/C 59/50)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
The subject matter of the present action is the loss allegedly
suffered by the applicants, who are French ship brokers, as a
result of the abolition in French law, under Law 2001-43 of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
16 January 2001, of the monopoly traditionally held by French               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ship brokers. This abolition occurred by reason of Article 5                European Communities on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma
of the Community Customs Code (1), as applied by the                        Léon Van Parys, established in Antwerp (Belgium), N.V. Pacific
Commission, when steps were taken following infringement                    Fruit Company, established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific
proceedings against the French Republic (letter of formal                   Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), and
notice of 12 February 1997 and reasoned opinion of 3 Decem-                 Pacific Fruit Company Italy S.p.A., established in Rome (Italy),
ber 1997) concerning the monopoly held by ship brokers,                     represented by P. Vlaemminck and J. Holmens.
under French law, in respect of representation for performing
the acts and formalities laid down by customs rules.
                                                                            The applicants claim that the Court should:
In support of their claims, the applicants contend that the                 1.    order the defendant to pay compensation under
abolition of the monopoly is an act for which the Commission                      Article 235 EC in conjunction with Article 288 EC for
is liable for the following reasons:                                              the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the
                                                                                  unlawful measures introduced by Commission Regulation
—      Breach of Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45                      No 2362/98, including default interest of 8 % to be paid
       EC), in that ship brokers, in implementing customs                         on all amounts with effect from the date on which the
       legislation, participate in the exercise of official authority.            damage was caused;
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/32                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
2.    order the defendant to pay interest at the statutory rate          Action brought on 31 December 2003 by Retecal Socie-
      of 8 % on all amounts due;                                         dad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León
                                                                         S.A., Euskaltel S.A., Telecable de Asturias S.A., R Cable y
                                                                              Telecomunicaciones Galicia S.A. and Tenaria S.A.
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                 (Case T-443/03)
                                                                                                  (2004/C 59/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicants claim to have suffered damage as a result of
Regulation No 2362/98 (1) in so far as bananas from Ecuador
do not qualify for the quota provided for in respect of                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
traditional ACP bananas and as a result of the ‘country                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
allocation’ system.                                                      European Communities on 31 December 2003 by Retecal
                                                                         Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y
                                                                         León S.A., established in Valladolid (Spain), Euskaltel S.A.,
                                                                         established in Zamudio, (Bizkaia, Spain), Telecable de Asturias,
                                                                         established in Oviedo (Spain), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
The applicants submit that, despite the Community’s express              Galicia S.A., established in La Coruña (Spain) and Tenaria S.A.,
intention to comply with the GATS and GATT 1994 Agree-                   established in Cordovilla (Navarra, Spain), represented by José
ments from 1 January 1999, as determined and ordered by the              Maria Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.
WTO dispute-resolution bodies, there has been a sufficiently
serious breach of superior rules of law as a result of Regulation
No 2362/98 and Regulation No 1637/98 (2). According to the
applicants, the amendments made by those regulations, which              The applicants claim that the Court should:
were enforced up to the end of 2001, infringe the GATS and
GATT Agreements, Community law, the principle of the                     —     annul the decision of 21 October 2003; and
protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of good
faith, international customary law as codified in the Vienna
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from
Convention on the Law of Treaties and are at variance with
                                                                               the proceedings.
the binding effect of the outcome of a dispute resolution
procedure which has been incorporated in an international
agreement concluded by the Community.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants also allege infringement of the principle of
equal treatment and submit that the Commission exceeded its              The present action is brought against the decision of the
powers of implementation by enforcing, up to the end                     Commission to take no further action on the complaint
of 2001, Regulation No 2362/98 containing rules on the                   submitted by the applicants relating to the alleged failure by
implementation of Regulation No 404/93 which are contrary                the Kingdom of Spain to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(8)
to the GATS and GATT 1994 Agreements. Finally, the                       of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
applicants allege infringement of the protection of legitimate           1989 (1) on the control of concentrations between undertak-
expectations and of the general legal principle of ‘patere legem         ings, with respect to the merger between VIA DIGITAL Y
quam ipse fecisti’ as a result of the failure to grant import            SOGECABLE (Case No COMP/M.2845 Sogecable/Canal Satél-
licences to the actual importer as declared to the Council.              ite Digital/Vía Digital) and conditions applied to that merger
                                                                         by the Spanish authorities. The applicants submit that that
                                                                         article lays down an obligation to carry out investigation and
                                                                         verification, which, in the present case, the Commission has
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998             failed to fulfil.
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending          The applicants recall that on 22 April 2003, they sent a letter
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the         to the Commission in which they submitted, essentially, that
    market in bananas (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28).                            the conditions adopted by the Spanish authorities were not
                                                                         capable of maintaining effective competition in the sector
                                                                         concerned, in that they ensured that SOGECABLE would
                                                                         remain in a monopoly situation, given what was stated by the
                                                                         Commission in the referral decision.