CELEX: C1998/312/36
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart GmbH and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-99/98)

10.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/13
3. suspends execution of that Commission Decision until             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    such time as the Court of First Instance has given final        Communities on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
    judgment on the main action;                                    GmbH and others, Stuttgart (Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany), represented by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt,
4. reserves the costs.                                              Hamburg (Germany), with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
                                                                    Philippe II.
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                               Ð declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the applicants for the losses suffered and/or to be
                       of 15 July 1998                                  suffered by the applicants as a result of the application
                                                                        of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the
in Case T-73/98 R: SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v.                common organisation of the market in bananas, in
         Commission of the European Communities                         particular Articles 17 to 19 and 21(2) thereof, and in
(State aid Ð Proceedings for interim measures Ð                         consequence of the application of Commission
  Intervention Ð Interim measures Ð Urgency Ð None)                     Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 laying down detailed
                                                                        rules for the application of the arrangements for
                        (98/C 312/35)                                   importing bananas into the Community, inasmuch as,
                                                                        in accordance with those regulations, and in particular
               (Language of the case: French)                           Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93:
In Case T-73/98 R SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA,                   Ð the inclusion of the applicants in the closed
incorporated in Engis (Belgium), represented by Bernard                     category of Category A' market operators
van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                       (Article 2(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93) is
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        conditional on their having marketed third-country
Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, against the Commission                       bananas during the years 1989 to 1991,
of the European Communities (Agent: Dimitris
Triantafyllou) Ð application for operation of Commission                Ð the scope of the import licences to which the
Decision SG (98) D631 on State aid cases N 198/97 and                       applicants are entitled within the framework of
NN 81/97 to be suspended Ð Germany Ð Financial                              Category A' is conditional on the reference
measures in favour of Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH,                      quantities accumulated by the applicants during
and for any other form of interim measure, the President                    the years 1989 to 1991, and
of the Court made an order on 15 July 1998 in which he:
                                                                        Ð market operators who, during the period from
1. allowed the Federal Republic of Germany to intervene                     1989 to 1991, were established in the former
    in support of the Commission;                                           German Democratic Republic were unable, prior
                                                                            to the point in time at which the territory of the
2. allowed the application by SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-                    former German Democratic Republic became part
    Rupel SA for certain parts of its application for                       of the then European Economic Community
    suspension of operation to be treated as confidential                   (German reunification on 3 October 1990), to
    for the interlocutory stage of the proceedings;                         accumulate such quantities,
3. dismissed the application for interim measures;                  Ð order the parties to indicate, within a given period (to
                                                                        be prescribed by the Court) after delivery of its
                                                                        judgment, the amounts which they have agreed upon
4. reserved judgment on costs.                                          as being payable, or, if no such agreement is reached,
                                                                        order them to submit to the Court, within that period,
                                                                        their quantified proposals as to the sums which should
                                                                        be paid,
                                                                    Ð reserve its decision as to costs.
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
GmbH and Others against the Council of the European
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                       (Case T-99/98)
                                                                    The applicants, who are members of the Atlanta Group,
                        (98/C 312/36)
                                                                    are established in the territory of the former German
                                                                    Democratic Republic, or were established there during the
              (Language of the case: German)                        period from 1989 to 1991. They are claiming inter alia
                                                                    compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them
An action against the Council of the European Union and             as a result of the fact that, under the Community rules on
the Commission of the European Communities was                      the organisation of the market, they were not able to
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
accumulate initial reference quantities throughout the             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
whole of the reference period (1989 to 1991), and were             Chambers of Claude Medernach, of Arendt &
able to do so only during the period from 3 October 1990           Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, Luxembourg.
to 31 December 1991.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants maintain that the organisation of the
market has had the effect of depriving them of quantities,         Ð order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
since it did not provide for any transitional rules which              USD 7 923 791 together with interest thereon at a rate
would have enabled third-country operators to adapt their              of 10 % from 25 September 1991,
business arrangements gradually to the organisation of the
market and to write off the investments made by them on            Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
the basis of the quantities imported prior to the entry into
force of the organisation of the market. The applicants
were able to use only a small part of the initial reference        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period from 1989 to 1991 in order to accumulate
reference quantities. They received far fewer import               The applicant, a property and construction company
licences than they would have received if, like all other          limited by shares and incorporated under Italian law,
third-country operators, they had had the benefit of a             alleges that it undertook work on the basis of a contract
reference period of three years.                                   entered into with the defendant for the Baardaheere
                                                                   Agricultural Experimental Station' development aid
                                                                   project launched on the basis of the Third ACP-EEC LomeÂ
The applicants complain of breach of the rights of the
                                                                   Convention for Somalia and for the execution of a project
defence, in that the Commission refused to hear the views
                                                                   under the aegis of the Sixth European Development Fund
of third-country operators unless those operators
                                                                   in Somalia.
presented their views jointly with the Community
operators and ACP operators, speaking with one voice'.
The applicants further allege a breach of the prohibition          The defendant's liability is now at issue as the
of discrimination contained in Article 40(3) of the EC             administrator of that development fund and employer of a
Treaty and breach of the principle of the protection of            member of staff answerable to it, namely its Somalia
legitimate expectations as regards third-country operators         delegate, on the ground of his unlawful conduct resulting
generally (who were given no opportunity to adapt                  in an obligation to pay damages. In spite of the unrest
themselves gradually to the drastic reduction in                   akin to civil war in 1990 and 1991, that delegate allegedly
quantities). In addition, the application to the applicants        held the applicant to its obligations under its contract
of the common organisation of the market has prejudiced            with the defendant notwithstanding the grave concerns
their freedom to engage in commercial activities. Finally,         voiced by the applicant about remaining in the country
the applicants plead infringement of the decision of the           any longer. Further, the delegate even urged the applicant
Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation            that it should maintain and oversee the works which had
(WTO), according to which essential provisions of the              been constructed for a period of at least two months
common organisation of the market, in particular the               beyond the performance of the contract. The applicant
system of licences established by it, are incompatible with        notified the defendant in writing as long ago as 1991 of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the                 resultant claims for compensation particularly since the
General Agreement on Trade in Services. Consequently,              applicant had incurred damage in the total amount of
the Community is liable to compensate the applicants by            USD 7 923 791 as a result of warlike acts committed by
placing them in the position which they would haved                the guerillas (destruction and theft of plant and equipment
occupied if the common organisation of the market, which           and plundering and wreaking devastation at the head
is contrary to the WTO rules, had never entered into               office and workshops) and the associated costs
force.                                                             (evacuation costs, claims for compensation from foreign
                                                                   staff, etc.).
                                                                   The applicant considers the fact that the defendant's
                                                                   delegate repeatedly ordered that the contract be performed
                                                                   and the project maintained and overseen, notwithstanding
                                                                   the foreseeability of the disintegration of Somalia's State
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Fratelli Murri SpA
                                                                   structures, to amount to unlawful conduct attributable to
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   the defendant. It alleges that the delegate, who was aware
                      (Case T-106/98)                              of that situation although he may have failed to make a
                       (98/C 312/37)                               correct assessment of how it would develop, did not give
                                                                   permission for the works to be prematurely terminated
                                                                   and the machines and equipment to be removed from the
               (Language of the case: German)                      country in time. Consequently there was a breach of the
                                                                   principle of proportionality. If the delegate had properly
An action against the Commission of the European                   and fairly weighed up the interests of the parties, he
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  would Ð not least as a result of the applicant's repeated
Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 1998               express warnings as to the dangerousness of the situation
by Fratelli Murri SpA, Rome (Italy), represented by Karl-          Ð have seen that the development aid project was not
Gustav von Luschka, Rechtsanwalt, Plauen (Germany),                secure in the long term and so was doomed. Instead, the