CELEX: C1996/133/53
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Mr Henrikson against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-5/96)

4 . 5 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/23
Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Sveriges Betodlares               The applicants stress that their application for annulment is
Centralforening and Mr Henrikson against the Commission                being lodged as a procedural safeguard . It does not pursue a
                 of the European Communities                           different aim from that in Case T- 1 97/95 , nor is it based on
                          ( Case T-5/96 )                              different reasoning .
                           ( 96/C 133/53 )
                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European                       Action brought on 26 January 1996 by Benjamin Laurence
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Lay against the Council of the European Union and the
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January 1996                        Commission of the European Communities
by Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Henrikson,                                        Case T-10/96 )
represented by Dr Otfried Lieberknecht, Dr Michael Schiitte                                     ( 96/C 133/54 )
and Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, Avenue
Guillaume 62 .                                                                         (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union and
The applicants claim that the Court should :                           the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
— annul the decision contained in the letter from the                  Communities on 26 January 1996 by Benjamin Laurence
     Commission dated 17 October 1995 VI/040143                        Lay, represented by Alan Maclean and Joanne Keddie,
     ( Reference D ( 95 ) VI/1242/95 ), in so far as it refuses to     Dawson & Co, 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London
     fix, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific                 WC2A 3RZ, England .
     agricultural conversion rate applicable to the minimum
     sugarbeet prices also with regard to Sweden, for the              The applicant claims that the Court should :
     period from 1 January 1995 ( that is, the date the
     Accession came into force ) through 30 June 1995 ( the
                                                                       — order damages against the Council and/or the
     end of the 1994/95 sugar marketing year ), and
                                                                           Commission as per a report of D. R. Gasson, included in
                                                                           the application, and
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                     — order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
                                                                           costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants, the Association of Swedish Sugar Beet                  The applicant complains of the damaging consequences of
Growers and Mr Henrikson, an individual Swedish sugar                  the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I and
beet grower, seek the fixing of the specific agricultural              II, he, as a SLOM III milk producer, has not been
conversion rate, which has been refused by Regulation ( EC )           compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
No 1734/95 . The refusal was confirmed and restated by the             introduction of SLOM quota .
contested decision .
                                                                       In order to give effect to the judgment of the Court of Justice
On 16 October 1995 , the applicants lodged their                       in Case C-81 /91 Twijnstra , the Council enacted on 19 July
applications for annulment in Case T-197/95 against the                1993 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 , on the basis of
aforementioned Regulation, on the basis that the                       which the applicant was finally allocated SLOM III quota in
Regulation expressly refused to determine a specific                   December 1993 . However, the award was not retroactive
agricultural conversion rate for Swedish crowns and thus               and the quota he finally received in no way compensates him
includes, in that respect, a decision against which an action          for the difficulties caused between 1985 and 1993 on
for annulment may be brought. As it could not be entirely              account of his not being allocated any quota, which meant
excluded that the non-determination of a specific                      that he had to lease quota .
conversion rate for Sweden in Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95
might be regarded as a ' failure to act' on the part of the            According to the applicant, failure to compensate SLOM III
Commission, to which the rules laid down in Article 175 of             producers for the non-allocation of quota allowing them
the EC Treaty would apply, the applicant Sveriges                      to engage in milk production after the end of the
Betodlares Centralforening submitted, on 4 October 19 95 ,             non-marketing period, is disproportionate to the end
an express request for an agricultural conversion rate for             pursued by a non-marketing scheme . After taking milk out
Sweden for the sugar marketing year 1994/95 . This request             of production for the limited period of time prescribed, the
has resulted in the contested decision .                               existence of that limited non-marketing scheme should not