CELEX: C1999/048/54
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 December 1998 in Case T-22/98: Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy - Raspberries intended for processing - Flat-rate grant to producers' organisations - Recovery of sums paid - Act against which no action lies - Legal effects - Application for annulment - Inadmissibility)

20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/25
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and J.                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                                        of 15 December 1998
an order on 25 November 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                in   Case   T-25/98:     Henri de Compte      v. European
                                                                                             Parliament (1)
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                    (Officials Ð Action for annulment and compensation Ð
                                                                    Decision of the Parliament giving discharge in respect of
                                                                    the implementation of the budget for the financial year
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.                         1995 Ð Prior administrative procedure Ð Decision
                                                                    rejecting a complaint Ð Identification of the
(1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.                                           subject-matter and legal basis Ð Partial inadmissibility Ð
                                                                    Res judicata Ð Action manifestly and wholly unfounded
                                                                                                in law)
                                                                                            (1999/C 48/55)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                          (Language of the case: French)
                    of 11 December 1998
in Case T-22/98: Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd v.                 In Case T-25/98: Henri de Compte, a former official of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   the European Parliament, residing at Longeville-leÁs-Metz,
(Common agricultural policy Ð Raspberries intended for              represented by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with
processing Ð Flat-rate grant to producers' organisations            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ð Recovery of sums paid Ð Act against which no action               Guy Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. European
lies Ð Legal effects Ð Application for annulment Ð                  Parliament (Agents: Evelyn Waldherr and Anders
                        Inadmissibility)                            Neergaard) Ð application, first, for annulment of
                                                                    Decision No A4-0125/97 of the European Parliament of
                        (1999/C 48/54)                              10 April 1997 giving discharge in respect of the
                                                                    implementation of the budget for the financial year 1995
                                                                    Ð Section I Ð European Parliament/Ombudsman annex
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    (OJ C 132, 28.4.1997, p. 148) and of the Parliament's
                                                                    decision, notified on 19 November 1997, rejecting a
In Case T-22/98: Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd,                   complaint lodged by the applicant and, second, for
established at Blairgowrie, Scotland (Great Britain),               compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant by
represented by Fergus Randolph, Barrister, of the Bar of            reason of the publication of the said discharge decision
England and Wales, with an address for service in                   and as a result of a wrongful accusation concerning a loss
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                 of cash Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of the European                composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and V. Tiili
Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) Ð application for                 and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
annulment of the decision of the Commission, expressed              order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of which
in its letter of 16 October 1997 to the Scottish Office,            is as follows:
refusing to accede to a request concerning the
interpretation and application of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1991/92 of 13 July 1992 establishing a special             1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible, save as
scheme for raspberries intended for processing (OJ L 199,               regards the claims concerning annulment of the
18.7.1992, p. 1), and of Commission Regulation (EEC)                    accounting documents relating to the sum of BEF
No 2252/92 of 30 July 1992 laying down detailed rules                   4 136 125 and the Parliament's refusal to make
for applying that scheme (OJ L 219, 4.8.1992, p. 19) Ð                  available to the applicant all the accounting
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke,                    documents explaining the reasons for which he was
President, M. R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;                not issued with a final discharge.
H. Jung, Advocate-General, has given a judgment on
11 December 1998, in which it:
                                                                    2. The remainder of the application is dismissed as
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                        manifestly and wholly unfounded in law.
2. The applicant shall pay its own costs and those                  3. The parties are to bear their own costs.
    incurred by the Commission.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.