CELEX: C2000/135/46
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-60/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou against the Council of the European Union

C 135/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou
                                                                                    against the Council of the European Union
The applicant in the present case is a member of the Dole                                           (Case T-60/00)
Group of companies which is a group of companies engaged
in the production, purchase, consignment and sale of green
third-country bananas to, and in, the European Community,                                          (2000/C 135/46)
within the meaning of Article 3 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1442/93, of June 1993, laying down delay rules for
the application of the arrangements for importing bananas
into the Community (1).                                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
The application concerns the damage suffered by the applicant              Communities on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou, resid-
through having to purchase export licences in the period from              ing at Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
1995 to 1998 in order to enable its agents to exercise rights              Bar.
to obtain import licences in order to sell bananas in the
Community. The applicant was entitled, through its agents, to
Category A banana import licences.                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of 5 July 1999 of the appointing
Regulation No 478/95(2) made the purchase and presentation                     authority refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation
of an export licence from certain countries a precondition for                 allowance;
the issue of the EC import licence.
                                                                           — annul the decision of 21 December 1999 by which the
                                                                               appointing authority rejects the applicant’s complaint that
                                                                               the contested decision should be annulled;
The European Court of Justice annulled Council Decision
94/800 (3) and the Commission Regulation No 478/95, to the
extent to which they discriminated between the different                   — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the expatriation
categories of operators set out in Council Regulation                          allowance as from 1 May 1999, minus, for the past, what
No 404/93 establishing the common organisation of the                          was granted to her by way of expatriation allowance;
market in bananas(4).
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant submits that the discriminatory nature and the
illegality of the above mentioned measures have caused it                  Pleas in law and main arguments
substantial loss and damage and constitute a breach of a
superior rule of law for the protection of the applicant.
                                                                           The applicant, an official of Greek nationality at the Council,
                                                                           claims in particular that, contrary to the contested decision,
                                                                           her principal residence, during the period of reference, was
(1) OJ L 142 of 25.6.1993, p. 62.                                          Athens. Although she arrived in Belgium in 1987, her
(2) Regulation No 478/95, of 1 March 1995, on additional rules for         residence in Brussels was only provisional and limited for the
    the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/95 as regards      purposes of studying. The functions she exercised in the
    the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the          Schengen General Secretariat between 1993 and 1999 should
    Community and amending (EEC) No. 1442/92 (OJ 1995 L 49, of             not be taken into account in respect of occupation within an
    4.3.1995, p. 13).
(3) Council Decision 94/800, of 22 December 1994, concerning the
                                                                           international organisation referred to in the second indent of
    conclusion on behalf of the Community, as regards matters              Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
    whithin its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
    Round multilateral negociations (1986-1994) (OJ L 336, of
    23.12.1994, p. 1).                                                     In taking the contested decision, the defendant committed a
(4) OJ L 471 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                           breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular of the second
                                                                           paragraph of Article 25 and Article 69 thereof, and of Annex
                                                                           VII thereto.