CELEX: C1997/094/43
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-14/97)

No C 94/20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 3 . 97
in Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          In support of her application, the applicant pleads
                                                                     infringement of Articles 31 ( 2 ) and 32 of the Staff
primarily:                                                           Regulations of officials, as well as a manifest error of
                                                                     assessment .
— declare the application admissible in as much as it
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                She maintains in that regard that she has, since 1981 ,
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                acquired exceptional professional experience in the fields
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                        of diplomacy, agricultural policy and environmental
     8 October 1996 (*),                                             policy, and that that experience has been recognized both
                                                                     by her previous employers and by her present assessor. It
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all the                is, moreover, an established fact, in her view, that she was
     costs associated with these proceedings;                        immediately able to perform her duties and that she has
                                                                     enabled her unit to make real progress in the field of
in the alternative :                                                 agricultural policy.
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect
                                                                     The applicant concludes from this that the Commission
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post­              has committed a manifest error of assessment, first, by
     clearance duties in question;                                   taking the view that neither her experience nor her
in the further alternative :                                         qualifications are sufficiently exceptional to justify her
                                                                     recruitment in a higher grade and, second, by considering
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                  that the post which she filled did not require the
     decision should not be annulled, order the                      recruitment of a particularly well-qualified official.
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in
     so far as it relates to Invoice No 7338F, which has
     already been settled, and in so far as it concerns              Action brought on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
     interest payments .                                                       against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                              ( Case T-14/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                ( 97/C 94/43 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those already relied on in Case T- 10/97 Unifrigo Gadus Sri                          (Language of the case: French)
v. Commission of the European Communities.                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Unpublished.
                                                                     Communities on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo, established
                                                                     at Conde sur Vire (France ), Sofivo Production, established
                                                                     at Brece ( France ), Sovinor, established at Conde sur Vire
                                                                     ( France ), Denkavit France, established at Montreuil-Bellay
                                                                     ( France ), Sobeval Viande, established at Périgueux
Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Anna Barnett                    ( France ), Serval, established at Sainte Eanne ( France ),
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Besnier Industrie, established at Bourgbarre ( France ),
                         (Case T-12/97)                              Sovida, established at Chateaubriand ( France ), Sica Ouest
                                                                     Elevage, established at Ploudaniel ( France ), Guinde,
                          ( 97/C 94/42 )                             established at Montauban de Bretagne ( France ),
                                                                     Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot ( France ),
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon (France ),
An action against the Commission of the European                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau ( France )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    and Collet et Compagnie, established at Chateaubourg
Instance of the European Communities on 20 January                   ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
1997 by Anna Barnett, residing in Brussels, represented by           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30               The applicants claim that the Court should:
rue de Cessange .
                                                                     — annul Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 adopted on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                          institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
— annul the decision of the appointing authority fixing                   the act being separable from its other provisions,
     at grade A 7 the applicant's classification in grade
     upon her recruitment,                                           — order the Council to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 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