CELEX: C1997/094/44
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA and Vals SA against the Council of the European Union (Case T-15/97)

22 . 3 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 94/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA, having
                                                                      its registered office at Saint Jacut du Mene ( France), and
The applicants, French companies producing veal for                   Vals SA, having its registered office in Champagne
human consumption, contest Council Regulation ( EC )                  ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( EEC ) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                   Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
market in beef and veal ( J ), in particular Article 1 (4 )
thereof, in as much as it requires the Member States to               The applicants claim that the Court should:
pay an early marketing premium the conditions and
methods of calculation of which have caused them serious
                                                                      — annul Regulation (EC ) No 2222/96 adopted on
damage .                                                                   18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                           institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
They state in that regard that, as a result of the fact that
                                                                           the act being separable from its other provisions,
Article 1 (4 ) provides, in the implementation of the said
premium, for the uniform application of a 15% reduction
in the slaughter weight in each country, based on a                   — order the Council to pay the costs .
reference parameter deriving from statistics drawn up for
1995 , the carcase premium reference figure obtainable by             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the applicants amounts to 108 kg, which weight is totally
incompatible with the normal marketing of such a carcase,             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
since the carcase weight produced prior to that measure               those relied on in Case T- 14/97 Sofivo and Others v.
was 127 kg.                                                           Council .
They further state that,
at the same time, their competitors in the Netherlands,
which is the second largest producer in Europe and
exports 95% of its production, enjoy the highest                      Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Atlantic Container
reference, enabling them to obtain the premium on the                 Line AB and others against the Commission of the
basis of a carcase weight of 138 kg, which places them in                                 European Communities
a particularly favourable competitive position in the
                                                                                                Case T-18/97)
French market. Since the carcase premium weight in that
country ( less than 138 kg) is very close to that for which                                     ( 97/C 94/45 )
demand exists in the French market, producers established
there are able to produce calves of the type sought after in                          (Language of the case: English)
the French market and to receive the premium of ECU 65
per carcase, resulting, in their view, in total disparity             An action against the Commission of the European
between both prices and products. Furthermore, the speed              Communities was brought before the Court of First
with which the measure has been introduced interferes
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 27 January
with the production previously planned, relating to                   1997 by Atlantic Container Line AB, represented by John
periods of between 22 and 24 weeks, whereas the                       Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Shaun Goodman, with
reference resulting in the premium weight of 108 kg                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
brings the fattening period down to between 15 and 17                 Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe .
weeks .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should
In support of their claims, the applicant companies plead
a breach of the principle of equality of treatment, as well
as the existence, in the present case, of an anti-competitive         — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 3414 of
situation, contrary to the second subparagraph of                          26 November 1996 relating to the Trans-Atlantic
Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                                            Conference Agreement,
(') OJ No L 296 , 21 . 11 . 1996 , p. 50 .                            — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      The applicants are 16 of the 17 liner shipping operators
                                                                      which are party to the Trans-Atlantic Conference
Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA and                   Agreement, pursuant to which they together provide
     Vals SA against the Council of the European Union                westbound and eastbound containerized liner services
                          (Case T-15/97)                              across the Atlantic Ocean for the carriage of cargo
                            ( 97/C 94/44 )                            between inland points and ports in Northern Europe and
                                                                      the United States of America .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
An action against the Council of the European Union was               Commission decision, in which the Commission withdrew
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            the applicants' immunity from fines conferred by