CELEX: C1999/333/69
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-197/99: Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Anthony Gooch against the Commission of the European Communities

C 333/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
— the proposal by the Commission, and the approval thereof               European Communities on 6 September 1999 by Anthony
    by the Council, regarding the signing of the bilateral               Gooch, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
    Agreement between the EC and Canada, inasmuch as it                  Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
    establishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for the EC from           sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    16 April 1995, and the adoption of Regulation (EC)                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
    No 1761/95 amending Regulation (EC) No 3366/94, by
    hich provision is made for certain conservation and
    management measures for fishery resources in the Regulat-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    ory Area defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral
    Cooperation in the North West Atlantic Fisheries (OJ                 — annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s
    L 171 of 21.7.1995).                                                     request for compensation dated 28 April 1998;
In support of their claims, the applicants maintain that:                — order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                             BEF 154 109, together with default interest at the annual
— the Commission has acted unlawfully, on account of                         rate of 8 % from 28 April 1998;
    the alleged serious shortcomings in its handling of the
    negotiations held within the framework of the NAFO
    Convention in September 1994 with a view to the                      — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    adoption of a series of measures for the administration and
    conservation of fishery resources in the NAFO Regulatory
    Area. The said unlawfulness is based, in precise terms, on
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
    such grounds as its failure to defend the interests of the
    Community, lack of information and poor management
    on the part of the Community delegation and the adoption             The applicant entered into service with the Commission on
    of a TAC based on criteria other than those traditionally            1 September 1995. The applicant’s place of recruitment and
    applied;                                                             of origin was initially fixed as being London. On 20 September
                                                                         1996 the applicant submitted a request for exemption from
— the Council has acted unlawfully by accepting, without                 value added tax (VAT) in respect of the purchase of a car. By
    any reservation whatever, the forecasts contained in Article         note dated 23 September 1996 the Head of the Unit respon-
    XII of the NAFO Convention and the proposal by the                   sible for Management of Individual Rights decided to change
    NAFO Fisheries Commission that a total allowable catch of            the applicant’s place of recruitment from London to Brussels.
    27 000 metric tonnes of Greenland halibut be established,            On 27 July 1997, following the lodging of a complaint, that
    when, in the applicants’ view, that position was contrary            department drew up a ‘file note’ (re)fixing London as the
    to the interests of the Community;                                   applicant’s place of recruitment.
— the institutions acted unlawfully in the negotiation and
    ratification of the bilateral fisheries Agreement between            Following that change in the fixing of the applicant’s place of
    Canada and the EC and in proposing and approving                     origin, the Commission on 27 July 1997 sent the request for
    Regulation (EC) No 1761/95, cited above, which esta-                 exemption from VAT to the Belgian authorities, who refused
    blishes a quota of 5 013 metric tonnes for catches of                to act on it, on the ground that it was out of time. According
    Greenland halibut by the Community fleet with effect from            to the Belgian rules, any request by the applicant for exemption
    16 April 1995.                                                       should have been submitted before 20 November 1996. The
                                                                         applicant thereafter paid the sum of BEF 154 109 in respect
In the alternative, the applicants plead strict liability on the         of VAT, in accordance with instructions given by the Head of
part of the Community on account of their having committed               the Unit. However, the Commission has not reimbursed that
a breach of the principle of equal distribution of public                VAT to him.
burdens.
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                             expectations;
Action brought on 6 September 1999 by Anthony Gooch
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     — breach of the principle of sound management and good
                                                                             administration;
                         (Case T-197/99)
                                                                         — failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
                         (1999/C 333/69)                                     welfare and interests of officials; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                        — failure to comply with Article 288(2) EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the