CELEX: C2001/134/57
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-45/01: Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

C 134/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
Action brought on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo Vieira y                   In support of its claims, the applicants claim:
Vieira Argentina, S.A. against Commission of the Euro-
                       pean Communities                                  —    Erroneous legal basis, inasmuch as the Commission
                                                                              claims that the legal basis for initiating a proceeding
                                                                              for reduction is Regulation Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (Case T-44/01)                                       No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down pro-
                                                                              visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
                                                                              as regards coordination of the activities of the different
                                                                              Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
                        (2001/C 134/56)                                       ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                              existing financial instruments. (1). On the contrary, the
                                                                              applicants consider that that legal basis is not applicable
                                                                              to joint companies set up under the EC/Argentina Agree-
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                            ment. That error with respect to the legal basis also affects
                                                                              the quantum by which the assistance may be reduced.
                                                                         —    Complete disregard by the Commission for the legal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              scheme applicable to joint fishing companies which it
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              proposed itself pursuant to the Fishing Agreement with
European Communities on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo
                                                                              Argentina, so far as concerns both the erroneous appli-
Vieira y Vieira Argentina, S.A., whose registered office is in
                                                                              cation of the general proceeding and the absence of a
Pontevedra (Spain), represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo
                                                                              decision suspending the financial assistance.
and Mª Dolores Domı́nguez Pérez.
                                                                         —    Breach by the defendant of the duties of care and good
                                                                              administration, as well as its obligation to act within a
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   reasonable time.
—      order the Commission to compensate the applicants for             —    Breach of the rights of the defence of one of the
       the damage caused to them by delayed payment of part                   applicants, inasmuch as Vieira Argentina SA was never
       of the aid;                                                            notified by the Commission of its intention to reduce the
                                                                              assistance, much less to suspend it for the duration of the
                                                                              proceedings.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action was brought by two undertakings owners
of fishing vessels to which, in the context of the Fishing
Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Repub-
lic, the Community granted in 1995 a subsidy for the export
to Argentina of a vessel flying a Community flag to a                    Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
joint Community-Argentinian company. In this regard the                  Others against the Commission of the European Com-
applicants claim that, more than 5 years after the joint                                              munities
company was set up, the defendant institution not only has
not paid the remaining balance of the assistance, amounting
to EUR 432 846,28, it even seeks to recover the part of the                                        (Case T-45/01)
amount paid by the beneficiaries.
                                                                                                  (2001/C 134/57)
The purpose of the present application is precisely to seek
from the Commission compensation for the damage caused to                                  (Language of the case: English)
the applicants by delaying payment of the outstanding balance
of the assistance. Furthermore, the Commission never deemed
it necessary to suspend the assistance, so that it has never             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
notified beneficiaries formally that the assistance had been             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
suspended. The defendant has in fact initiated a proceeding              European Communities on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
seeking to reduce the amount, the outcome being suspension               Others, represented by Ian Hutton, of Monckton Chambers,
of payment of the balance of the assistance.                             London (U.K.).
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision dated 14 November
      2000;                                                              —     annul the decision of the Commission, notified by letter
                                                                               of 8 December 2000 AGR No 030905, which arrived on
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicants for                    21 December 2000, signed by Director-General for
      the loss of earnings, pension, benefits and privileges                   Agriculture J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez, pursuant to Articles 230
      occasioned to them by breaches of Community law;                         and 231 of the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
                                                                               Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                the EC Treaty;
The action is brought against a decision of the Join European
Torus (JET) Appointing Authority declining a request for                 —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensation made by the applicants for losses resulting from
the Commission’s method of engaging them to work on the
JET project without recruiting them to temporary Commission
posts.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that, in so doing, the Commission:
—     was in breach of the fundamental principle of non-
      discrimination in that in several respects the applicants          The applicant companies have for many years marketed third-
      were materially disadvantaged, to a significant extent,            country bananas. In 2000, like 1999, they were allocated a
      compared to those in temporary Commission posts; and               reference quantity established by reference to the average
                                                                         quantity of bananas imported from third countries in the
                                                                         three-year period 1994/1995/1996, and so they regularly
—     was in breach of, or alternatively ultra vires, the Statutes
                                                                         submitted, during 2000, applications for quarterly licences to
      governing the JET Project, prior to the amendment of the
                                                                         import bananas from third countries. For the fourth quarter of
      Statutes which took effect on 21 October 1998; in so
                                                                         2000, the applicants submitted applications for import licences
      far as the said amendment purported to preclude the
                                                                         in respect of the quantities left over from the yearly quantity
      Commission from recruiting the applicants to temporary
                                                                         allocated to them, indicating as origins for the product they
      posts, the amendment was to the extent unlawful and
                                                                         sought to import one or more third countries.
      invalid.
                                                                         Under Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98
                                                                         of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                         implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
                                                                         regarding imports of bananas into the Community (1), the
                                                                         applicants could have submitted applications for licences for
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                       the fourth quarter of 2000, but only in respect of the
and Others against the Commission of the European                        traditional ACP countries, for which there were still
                          Communities                                    329 787,675 tonnes, the other sources having by now been
                                                                         completely exhausted. Since in 1999 they had requested and
                                                                         obtained import licences for ACP countries up to their
                         (Case T-46/01)                                  reference quantity, but had not been able to use them because
                                                                         it had been impossible to find bananas from those origins in
                        (2001/C 134/58)                                  2000, they renounced their use of the licence in order not to
                                                                         risk losing the security lodged, as had happened the previous
                                                                         year.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicants therefore requested the Commission to issue
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               them import licences in respect of third-country bananas for a
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                 reduced amount, even if the quota was exhausted, or to
and others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and Gabrie-             compensate them for the losses suffered as a result of their not
le Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in                being able to use up the whole of their respective reference
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, rue Mathias                 quantities. The defendant’s refusal in this regard is at the heart
Hardt.                                                                   of the present proceedings.