CELEX: C1998/094/72
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 31 December 1997 by Aduanas Pujol Rubio, SA, and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-614/97)

C 94/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
Instance of the European Communities on 29 December                 Action brought on 31 December 1997 by Aduanas Pujol
1997 by Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH,                    Rubio, SA, and Others against the Commission of the
Ostrau, Federal Republic of Germany, represented by, and                               European Communities
having an address for service at the offices of, Gert Meier,
                                                                                          (Case T-614/97)
Rechtsanwalt, 10 Jakordenstrasse, Cologne.
                                                                                            (98/C 94/72)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
Ð annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty
     and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission           An action against the Commission of the European
     of 24 October 1997 on the adoption of transitional             Communities was brought before the Court of First
     measures in favour of Cordis Obst und Gemüse                   Instance of the European Communities on 31 December
     Grosshandel GmbH under the common organisation                 1997 by Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA and other Spanish
     of the market in bananas,                                      customs agents, represented by Santiago MunÄoz Machado,
                                                                    of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Amo QuinÄones,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            2 Rue Gabriel Lipmann.
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation to the
The applicant was founded in November 1990 and is a                      applicants, by way of non-contractual liability, for the
wholesale fruit business which operates in Saxony, thus in               damage alleged in the present application to the extent
the area of the former German Democratic Republic. On                    to which the Spanish State has not been found liable
its incorporation it absorbed parts of the former East                   by the national courts,
German farmer's cooperative in order to give the workers
of that concern the opportunity of continued employment.
In July 1991 a banana-ripening plant with an annual
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
capacity of 11 960 tonnes began operating. The contested
decision rejected the request made by the applicant in
accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/
93 for the grant of additional ripening licences amounting          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
to at least 5 000 tonnes as a transitional measure to
compensate for hardship which was not the applicant's
fault and had come about as a result of the rules on                The applicants state that the claim for damages which is
reference periods in Article 19(2) of the Regulation.               the subject matter of the present action does not arise
                                                                    from the loss of business as a result of the gradual
                                                                    removal of customs posts but rather from the actual costs
                                                                    of conversion (essentially dismissals) which they have had
In the applicant's view, the Community institutions were
                                                                    to incur as a result of the total and sudden abolition of
required in accordance with the principle of equal
                                                                    customs formalities between Member States of the
treatment to take account of the different starting
                                                                    Community. The applicants acknowledge that such
positions of old and new businesses. The Council was
                                                                    abolition of customs posts within the Community in view
already obliged to implement such special arrangements in
                                                                    of the creation of the internal market had already been
favour of the new businesses in the new German Länder.
                                                                    announced in Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome. None the
However, following the judgment of the Court of Justice
                                                                    less, the applicants point out that the steps provided for its
of the European Communities in Case C-280/93 (1) which
                                                                    creation were restricted to the abolition of customs duties,
accords the Council a wide legislative discretion, it is to be
                                                                    not of the customs posts themselves. The latter arises
assumed that the Council could leave it to the
                                                                    directly from Article 13 of the Single European Act.
Commission to arrange for appropriate compensation for
                                                                    Nevertheless, implementation of the mandate contained in
the special sacrifices required of the new businesses. That
                                                                    that provision was subject to the condition that it be
is all the more true inasmuch as, by Article 30 of
                                                                    gradual, a condition breached by the Community
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, the Commission was given
                                                                    legislature. This constitutes the first plea alleging
a broad framework within which to act. By failing, in
                                                                    unlawfulness.
breach of the principle of equal treatment, to make full
use of that framework, the Commission misused its
powers and infringed the Treaty.
                                                                    The applicants seek a finding of non-contractual liability
                                                                    against the Community authorities for the legislation
(1) Case C-280/93 Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-4973.             which brought into force simultaneously on 1 January
                                                                    1993 provisions abolishing customs formalities without
                                                                    providing for proper transitional measures for the
                                                                    retraining of customs agents.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 94/29
Further, the applicants allege, in support of their claims,        to be regarded as inappropriate, because they are limited
that the principles of proportionality, of the protection of       to a period of one year, and because the Regulation has no
legitimate expectations, fairness and proportionality have         binding effect on the Member States. Moreover, the action
been breached and that the right to property and freedom           envisaged by the Community was centred only on priority
to provide a service have been disregarded.                        regions. The applicants state in that connection that since
                                                                   the damage was definitive as at 1 January 1993, the date
                                                                   of publication of Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 rendered
                                                                   ineffective the few measures that were envisaged therein,
                                                                   since the undertakings were obliged to take the economic
                                                                   measures necessary, without receiving support, on that
Actions brought on 31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres             same date in order to limit their losses. The measures
and Others against Commission of the European                      proposed, whatever they might be, could be taken only a
     Communities and Council of the European Union                 long time after the requisite adoption of the restructuring
                                                                   measures.
            (Joined Cases T-615/97 to T-618/97)
                        (98/C 94/73)                               The applicants allege breach, so far as they are concerned,
                                                                   of the principle of the observance of acquired rights, the
                (Language of the case: French)                     principle of legal certainty, the principle of the protection
                                                                   of legitimate expectations and the principle of non-
Actions against the Commission of the European                     discrimination.
Communities and the Council of the European Union
were brought before the Court of First Instance on                 The applicants state in particular in that connection that
31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres and Others,                    no initiative taken by the undertakings before 31 December
established in France, represented by Jean-FrancËois               1992 taking account of the disappearance of intra-
Bournilhas, of the Paris Bar, and Mark Clough, Solicitor,          Community customs traffic on 1 January 1993, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   particular the laying off of employees under the special
chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              social plan, could give effect to a regulation which was
                                                                   not to become known until 31 December 1992, that is to
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance              say at the very time at which the harm accrued. Moreover,
should:                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 treats in the same way
                                                                   situations which differ considerably from one Member
Ð declare the defendants liable, for the purposes of the           State to another. Finally, that Regulation is discriminatory
    second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty for the          as between those who took such action before January
    damage caused to their businesses as approved                  1993 and those who took it after its publication.
    customs agents as a result of the provisions adopted
    by the Council to ensure the free movement of goods            In the alternative, the applicants allege strict liability on
    throughout the internal market as from 1 January               the part of the Community, deriving from its failure to
    1993, without taking the measures necessary to                 ensure equal treatment in relation to charges imposed by
    safeguard the applicants' interests and as a result of         the public authorities. In their opinion, the intervention of
    the Commission's failure to propose and the Council's          the Community authorities can be deemed to constitute an
    failure to adopt the measures necessary legitimately to        expropriation, since the situation in which they find
    safeguard their rights,                                        themselves is worse than that which would derive from
                                                                   the economic risks associated with the economic sector
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to                    concerned.
    compensate each of the applicants for the said
    damage, and to pay interest at the rate of 8 % per             (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992
    annum as from 1 January 1993,                                      on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the
                                                                       internal market (OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, which are approved French customs                  Actions brought on 24 December 1997 by SPRL NoeÈl
agents, criticise the Community institutions for failing to        Boone and Others against Commission of the European
take adequate measures to forestall the harm accruing to                                     Communities
them as a result of completion of the internal market                           (Joined Cases T-620/97 to T-627/97)
established by the Single European Act.
                                                                                             (98/C 94/74)
The applicants claim that the only reaction on the part of
the Community authorities to the situation in which they                            (Language of the case: French)
found themselves is contained in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 (1). However,                 Actions against the Commission of the European
the measures with which that Regulation is concerned are           Communities were brought before the Court of First