CELEX: C1995/299/28
Language: en
Date: 1995-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-168/95)

No C 299/ 1 6         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
That      legislative   omission     unjustifiably    penalizes      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
manufacturers in those countries where the real rate of
financing costs is higher than 6,75% , and particularly              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Italian manufacturers, since in Italy the interest rate in           in Case T-20/ 94 .
question is 11,65% .
In the applicants' submission, the new Community rules
manifestly infringe :
                                                                     Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Eridania
                                                                     Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and others against the Council
— Article 40 of the EEC Treaty , which excludes any                                       of the European Union
     discrimination between producers or consumers within                                     ( Case T-168/95 )
     the Community, and
                                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/28 )
— Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty, since the
                                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
     mechanism in question places unjustified obstacles to
     applying free market principles to Italian producers . The
     distortion in question increases the competitiveness of         An action against the Council of the European Union was
     foreign products on the Italian market while decreasing         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     that of Italian products on other Community                     Communities on 5 September 1 995 by Eridania Zuccherifici
     markets .                                                       Nazionali SpA , with its registered office in Genoa , and
                                                                     Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA , with its
                                                                     registered office in Padua ( the Eridania-Zuccherifici
                                                                     Nazionali SpA Group ); Societa Sadam Zuccherifici , a
                                                                     division of Societa Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA,
                                                                     Societa Sadam Castiglionese SpA and Societa Sadam
                                                                     Abruzzo SpA, all registered in Bologna , and Societa
                                                                     Zuccherifico del Molise SpA, with its registered office in
                                                                     Termoli ( the Sadam Zuccherifici Group ); Societa Fondiaria
Action brought on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr                Industriale Romagnola SpA, with its registered office in
von Marschalck against the Council of the European Union             Gesena , and Societa Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, with its
     and the Commission of the European Communities                  registered office in Pontelagoscuro ( the SFIR Group ),
                                                                     represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the High
                       ( Case T-162/95 )                             Court of Ireland , and by Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta,
                         ( 95/C 299/27 )                             of the Genoa Bar, with an adress for service in Luxembourg
                                                                     at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la
                                                                     Foire .
               (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
An action against the Council of the European Union and              — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1534/95 of 29 June
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    1995 fixing, for the 1 995/96 marketing year, the derived
before the Court of First Instance of the European                       intervention prices for white sugar , the intervention
Communities on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr von                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
Marschalck, represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild                  beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs
Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and                        ( OJ 1995 L 148 , p. 1 1 ); or in any event annul Article 1 ( f)
Dr Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte , Münster, with an                  thereof, fixing the derived intervention price for white
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     sugar for all the areas in Italy,
Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                     — annul       all   other     measures      in relation    to    the
                                                                         abovementioned, whether prior, subsequent or
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              howsoever connected , including Council Regulation
                                                                          ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 and successive
                                                                         amendments thereto , concerning the common
 1 . order the defendants to pay the applicant milk                      organization of the markets in the sugar sector, or in
      quota compensation ( SLOM-II ) pursuant to Council                  any event annul Articles 3 , 5 and 6 thereof and all
      Regulation No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 for the period                implementing measures,
      from 2 April 1984 to 15 June 1991 , amounting to
      DM 75 634,65 , together with 8 % interest from 1 9 May         — award costs in favour of the applicants .
      1992 , and to pay the costs of the proceedings,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . join the present case to Case T-77/93 Hülseberg and
      Others v. Council and Commission and likewise stay the         A number of Italian sugar-manufacturing companies, which
      proceedings .                                                  form groups within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 299/ 17
( EEC ) No 193/82 and which together hold about 92% of                The applicant claims that the Court should :
the production quotas assigned to Italy as a whole, challenge
the new rules for the sugar sector in as much as they provide         — annul the Commission 's decision to regard the
for the total elimination of the aids to the Italian industry             applicant's absence from work between 8 and 23 August
which had been permitted until the 1994/95 marketing year                  1994 as unauthorized and to impute 10 days against his
while at the same time maintaining in force the system                    annual holiday entitlement,
whereby in deficit areas ( being those in which production is
lower than consumption ( sugar manufacturers pay a higher             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
minimum price for beet than that paid by manufacturers in
non-deficit areas . That difference, like the corresponding           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
difference between the intervention price and the derived
intervention price for sugar, is referred to as regionalization ,     The applicant challenges the Commission 's determination
and its original purpose was to allow producers in countries          that his absence from work during the second and third
with a surplus to supply deficit countries , covering the             weeks of August 1994 was unauthorized .
higher transport costs necessary .
                                                                      He states that it was not until he became aware of the
Given that Italy is not a deficit country, the fact that              contested decision of 21 September 1994 that he was told
regionalized prices are applied indicates, in the applicants'         that the Commission 's medical officer had concluded that
submission , that the arrangement has lost its original               the cessation of work prescribed by his attending doctor was
function and become a gratuitous and undue benefit for beet           unjustified , and that he should have resumed work
growers, entirely at the cost and to the enormous and                 immediately .
unwarranted detriment of Italian sugar manufacturers, who
are no longer compensated by the receipt of aids . In order to        The applicant considers that the institution 's medical
maintain the coherence of the system, abolition of the aids           officer, being merely a general practitioner engaged at given
and abolition of the regionalized prices should have gone             times to perform specific functions , had no jurisdiction in
hand in hand under the new system .                                   the matter beyond submitting a report to the appointing
                                                                      authority as to the validity of the medical certificate; only the
In the applicants' submission, the new Community rules :              institution had the authority to form the opinion that sick
                                                                      leave prescribed by an attending doctor was not binding
— infringe Article 40 of the EEC Treaty, which excludes               upon it and to order an official to resume work immediately .
     any discrimination between producers within the                  Moreover, pursuant to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,
     Community and provides that any common price policy              such a decision must be communicated to the official
     is to be based on common criteria and uniform methods            concerned immediately in writing, which was not done in
     of calculation ,                                                 this case .
— are contrary to Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty,               The applicant also claims that he sent the Commission a
     since the mechanism in question places unjustified               medical certificate from his doctor prescribing cessation of
     obstacles to applying free market principles to Italian          work from 25 July to 19 August 1994 , and that under
     producers,                                                       Article 59 of the Staff Regulations he was therefore
                                                                      automatically entitled to sick leave . Although Article 59
— introduces a ' masked' aid to Italian growers , exclusively         permits the institution to require the applicant to undergo a
     at the expense of Italian sugar producers .                      medical examination, it does not authorize it, in the event of
                                                                      the medical officer disputing the validity of the medical
                                                                      certificate produced, to disregard that certificate and order
                                                                      the official concerned to resume work .
 Action brought on 8 September 1995 by Agustin Qui) ano
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-l 69/95 )                            Action brought on 15 September 1995 by Paolo Carrer
                          ( 95/C 299/29 )                              against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                                Communities
                                                                                             ( Case T-170/95 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                               ( 95/C 299/30 )
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
 Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
  1995 by Agustin Quijano, resident in Luxembourg,                     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
 represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels Bar, with an address for          Instance of the European Communities on 15 September
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson              1995 by Paolo Carrer, an official of the Court of Justice ,
 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.                                                residing at Kehlen, Luxembourg, represented by Roberta