CELEX: C1996/077/29
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 1 December 1995 by Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' SRL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-218/95)

16 . 3 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 77/ 11
Action brought on 9 September 1995 by Diego Echauz                  special leave and travelling time for elections, which it had
Brigaldi, José-Luís Buendía Sierra, César Montoliu García,          been granting to officials of Spanish nationality whose
María Jesús Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,                 official place of residence continues to be in Spain, in order
Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López,                  to go to exercise their constitutional right to vote at various
Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María              elections .
Carmen      Labrador     Rubio,    Carmen    Casado     Salinas,
Diego González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín,                     The applicant officials claim that, by not taking account of
Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray against             either the characteristics of Spanish electoral law or the
       the Commission of the European Communities                   relevant provisions of the Protocol on Privileges and
                       ( Case T-156/95 )                            Immunities of the European Communities, the Commission
                                                                    has committed a manifest error of assessment of the
                          ( 96/C 77/28 )                            facts .
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                      The applicants also allege that essential procedural
                                                                    requirements have been infringed inasmuch as the
                                                                    provisioins abolishing special leave and travelling time,
An action against the Commission of the European                    which constitutes the subject-matter of the dispute, were
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   approved only at the level of the Board of Heads of
Instance of the European Communities on 9 September                 Administration without following the concertation
1995 by Diego Echauz Brigaldi , Jose-Luis Buendía Sierra ,          procedure or consulting the Staff Regulations Committee, a
Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz Monroy,                     body in which all the institutions are jointly represented by
Carmen Ochoa de Michelena , Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke,            their respective Staff Committees . That procedure was,
Miguel Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada Gil Tardón,                        nonetheless, mandatory since it concerned a decision
Antonio Garcia Velazquez, Maria Carmen Labrador Rubio,              affecting all officials .
Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez Marin, Eva Maria
Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra           Moreover, the defendant institution has disregarded the
Utray, all of whom are officials of the Commission of the           principle of non-discrimination in that there was no single
European Communities and residing at Brussels,                      inter-institutional criterion when applying the new
represented by Ramon Garcia-Gallardo, of the Burgos                 restrictive provisions in the present case .
Bar .
                                                                    Finally, the applicants rely on other legal grounds, such as
                                                                    breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        acquired rights .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 2 May
     1995 in response to a complaint submitted by Diego
     Echauz Brigaldi and the rest of the officials on List A, by
     which the Commission refused special leave for elections
     and travelling time in order to exercise the right to vote     Action brought on 1 December 1995 by Azienda Agricola
     of those officials working for the Commission of               'Le Canne' SRL against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
     Spanish nationality whose official residence continues to
     be in Spain and who travelled to Spain for the European                                  ( Case T-218/95 )
     Parliament elections of June 1994,                                                          ( 96/C 77/29 )
— annul the implied rejection in the same terms as above in                         (Language of the case: Italian)
     respect of the officials in List B,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— furthermore, in view of the economic consequences of              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     the present case, require the Commission either to             Instance of the European Communities on 1 December
     compensate each official on List A and List B with the         1995 by Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' SRL, whose registered
     days used by each of them to travel to Spain to vote, in       office is at Porto Viro ( Rovigo ), Italy, represented by Giulio
     accordance with the table appearing in Opinion                 Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonnetto, of
     No 201/92 of 18 December 1991 on special leave for             the Padua Bar, and by Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar,
     elections adopted by the Board of the Heads of                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
     Administration, or to pay them for the days used,              of Guy Arendt.
— order the Commission of the European Communities to               The applicant claims that the Court should :
     pay the costs of these proceedings .
                                                                    — declare void the contested act of the Commission, Note
                                                                        No 12497 of 27 October 1995 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                    — order the Commission to make good the damage,
Several officials of Spanish nationality at the Commission of
the European Communities contest the decision to abolish            — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 3 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                            — the audi alteram partem principle,
                                                                            — the obligation to give reasons.
The applicant company owns a fish farm at Rosolina, in the
Province of Rovigo, on the coast of the Upper Adriatic . In           ( b ) Contravention of the rules governing application of the
1990 it obtained aid of Lit 1 103 646 181 from the                          EC Treaty, namely infringement of Article 44 of
Commission under reorganization of its fish-rearing                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 and Article 7 of
installations . Corresponding aid of Lit 827 734 635 was to                 Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1116/88 : the
have been paid by Italy .                                                   contested act constitutes a decision surreptitiously
                                                                            reducing the agreed aid, without due compliance with
                                                                            the procedure for suspending, reducing or
                                                                            discontinuing aid, laid down by Article 44 of
When the work was finished, on 23 December 1993 , the                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 , and without prior
applicant applied to the competent Italian Ministry and to                  fulfilment of the corresponding requirements which are
the Commission for a certificate that the project had been                  binding on the Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the
finally carried out. The Italian Ministry arranged, by note of              implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1116/88 .
8 February 1994, for the prior on-site technical inspection
by the Ufficio del Genio Civile ( Civil Engineer's
Department ), which is required under Italian law. Following          (c ) Misuse of powers: the Commission has made use of its
the inspection, that Department reported both to the                        'consultative' power in order to bring about a wholly
applicant and to the Ministry, stating that the work in                     different result, namely the effective reduction of the
                                                                            aid .
question differed in some respects from the project. On
1 February 1995 the Ministry's inspectors inspected the
work finally carried out, within their sphere of competence,
and issued the relevant certificate on 25 May 1995 . In that          If the contested act is annulled, as requested, it will be a
certificate, inter alia they repeat the findings of the Civil         simple matter to find that the institution which adopted that
                                                                      act has caused the applicant, as the beneficiary of the aid,
Engineer's Department and give details of further disparities
with respect to the project. Consequently, according to the           damage for which compensation is payable under
Ministry, the total reckonable expenditure for the purposes           Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, corresponding to the
of calculation of the aid was no longer Lit 2 627 729 000, as         considerable reduction of the aid granted, both the amount
fixed by the Commission's initial decision on the project,            payable by the European Union and that payable by Italy.
but Lit 1 907 350 101 , a reduction of Lit 720 378 899 . The          Application is made for compensation in an amount not less
applicant submitted written observations challenging the              than the compensatory or default interest on the contested
Ministerial Inspectors ' report, claiming that it was                 sum to reflect the heavy financial burden imposed on the
                                                                      applicant.
unfounded and requesting a review. On 14 November 1995
the Ministry informed the applicant that its request for a
review had been refused, the most significant factor in this
context being that the Ministerial communication expressly
states that it is in full conformity with an opinion expressed
by the Commission by note of 27 October 1995 . The present
application is against that act of the Commission since,
although adopted in the form of a different measure, it is in
fact a decision which directly adversely affects the                  Action brought on 2 December 1995 by Marie-Therese
applicant's interests, in that its twofold effect is to reduce the    Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa against the
aid from the Community and that from the Member                                Commission of the European Communities
State .                                                                                       ( Case T-2 19/95 )
                                                                                                 ( 96/C 77/30 )
The following pleas in law are put forward in support of the                          (Language of the case: English)
application:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
( a ) Infringement of essential procedural requirements : the         Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
      contested act neither satisfies nor complies with the            1995 by Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and
      procedural requirements laid down by Community law              Edwin Haoa, all residents of Tahiti ( French Polynesia ),
      in order to protect the substantive interests of                represented by Phon van den Biesen, of Van den Biesen
      individuals subject to it, namely:                              Prakken Bohler, Amsterdam, and Denis Waelbroek, of
                                                                      Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroek & Kilpatrick, Brussels,
      — the principle of collegiality applying to the                 assisted by Dr Gerrit Betlem, Nederlands Instituut voor
          Commission 's actions ,                                     Sociaal en Economisch Recht, Utrecht, and by Sven
                                                                      Deimann, Johann W. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt am
                                                                      Main; with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      — the Community principle of legal certainty,                   office of Dei Greng, 31 , Grand-rue .