CELEX: C1999/246/80
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-142/99: Action brought on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l., as promoter of Sonda s.r.l., against Commission of the European Communities

C 246/40              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.8.1999
Action brought on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l. against                     — Manifest contradiction, inadequacy and illogicality of the
         Commission of the European Communities                                statement of reasons as regards the alleged lack of partici-
                                                                               pation in joint funding and justification of certain invoiced
                                                                               expenses.
                        (Case T-141/99)
                                                                          — Breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection
                        (1999/C 246/79)                                        of legitimate expectations. The applicant took all the
                                                                               measures and action provided for in the decision awarding
                                                                               the grant, bearing all the expenses mentioned therein. That
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             fact, together with the positive outcome of the checks
                                                                               undertaken by the defendant before paying each of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      individual instalments of the Community grant, caused the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     applicant to entertain the legitimate expectation that its
European Communities on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l.,                           conduct had been procedurally and substantively correct.
represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier                In particular, the applicant considered, until it received the
Francesco Meneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars,                      letter of objections of 3 April 1998, that it had lawfully
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   implemented the project, above all following the second
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.                                           check prior to payment of the final balance.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             Finally, breach is alleged of the principle of proportionality.
— Annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of 9 March
    1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
    to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be                   laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
    decided in the course of the proceedings;                                 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
                                                                              24.12.1994, p. 11).
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of
9 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made by the
Commission under Commission Decision C (92) 1494 of 30
June 1992 concerning grant of the EAGGF, Guidance Section,                Action brought on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l., as promoter
contribution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1),               of Sonda s.r.l., against Commission of the European
in connection with Project No 92.IT.06.001 entitled ‘Action                                         Communities
in the form of a demonstrative project for the introduction
and promotion of cylindrical luffa in disadvantaged European                                       (Case T-142/99)
areas’.
                                                                                                   (1999/C 246/80)
In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas:
— Infringement and misapplication of the Treaty and of                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
    secondary law and misuse of powers. The two legal
    bases relied on by the Commission, Article 23 of the
    abovementioned regulation, on which it based its on-the-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    spot inspection carried out from 10 to 12 November                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    1997, and Article 24 thereof, on which it based its letter            European Communities on 10 June 1999 by Vela s.r.l., as
    of objections of 3 April 1998 and the subsequent decision             promoter of Sonda s.r.l., represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari,
    cancelling and withdrawing the grant, are not correct. The            Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier Francesco Meneghini, of the
    applicant also considers that either the project in question          Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars, with an address for service in
    was presented, carried out and monitored without the                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert
    participation of the Member State concerned, in which                 Premier.
    case the defendant is not entitled to apply Article 23 of the
    Regulation, since the application of those provisions                 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    presupposes the joint participation of the Member State
    and the Community; or else, if the project in question was
    presented, carried out and monitored jointly with the                 — Annul Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of 4 March
    Member State concerned, it is not clear why the Com-                       1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant
    mission involved the Italian Republic only at the stage of                 to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be
    objecting to the alleged irregularities on the part of the                 decided in the course of the proceedings;
    beneficiary, without however allowing the latter properly
    to express its views in that procedure.                               — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/41
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 26 March 1999 (Decision C(1999) 760
                                                                              final) by which it rejected the request made by the Kingdom
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of                    of Belgium, for the benefit of Miller NV, seeking a waiver
4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one                      of post-clearance recovery of import duties in respect of
of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission                        television sets imported from Turkey during the period
Decision C (93) 3401 of 26 November 1992 concerning grant                     from 5 June 1991 to 26 February 1992 or the remission
of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council                    of those duties;
Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1), in connection with Project
No 92.IT.06.057 entitled ‘Action in the form of a pilot                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
demonstrative project for the reduction of production costs
and fertiliser costs in sunflower cultivation’.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
                                                                          — Infringement of the rights of the defence:
Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.
                                                                              By not allowing Miller NV to inspect the administrative
                                                                              file, the Commission infringed an essential procedural
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No              requirement and failed to respect Miller’s rights of defence.
     2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
     24.12.1994, p. 11).                                                  — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly concluded in the contested
                                                                              decision (1) that there was no question in the present
                                                                              case of any error having been made by the competent
                                                                              authorities, and (2) that Miller NV had not acted in good
                                                                              faith, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No
                                                                              1697/79.
                                                                          — Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV against the
          Commission of the European Communities                              Regulation No 1430/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly found in the contested decision
                           (Case T-147/99)                                    that the first of the conditions for the application of the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 13 — namely, the existence of
                                                                              special circumstances — had not been met in the present
                          (1999/C 246/81)                                     case.
                                                                          — Failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
                     (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            statement of reasons (Article 253 EC).
                                                                          — In the alternative, breach of the principle of pro-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     portionality:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV,                            By requiring Miller NV to pay import duties in an amount
established at Willebroek (Belgium), represented by Y. Van                    greater than the countervailing charge, the Commission
Gerven and I. Bernaerts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                 committed a breach of the principle of proportionality.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to produce all documents on which
                                                                          Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber
      it based its contested decision, together with all documents
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
      — including those of an administrative nature — relating
      to this matter, including, for example, those which
      prompted it to organise a mission to Turkey in 1993 for                                      (Case: T-149/99)
      the purposes of carrying out an investigation into the issue
      of ATR certificates for television sets, the results of that                                 (1999/C 246/82)
      mission and the reports drawn up in relation to it, any
      correspondence on that subject between the Commission
      and the Member States and between the Commission and                                  (Language of the case: German)
      the Turkish authorities, etc., in order that the same may be
      examined by the Court, and require those documents also             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      to be produced to Miller NV, in order to enable the latter          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to examine whether it may use them by way of further                European Communities on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber,
      support for its application in the present case and the pleas       Köln, represented by Anja Bornemann of Leinen & Derichs,
      advanced therein;                                                   Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.