CELEX: C1999/071/51
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 December 1998 in Case T-39/98: Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 - Provision abolishing national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the marketing year 2001/2002 - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

C 71/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
and Guus Houttuin), supported by Kingdom of Spain                    Lucera (Italy), represented by Luigi Filippo Paolucci and
(Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) and Commission of the             Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna Bar, with an address
European Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn) Ð                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne
application, in Case T-163/97, first, for annulment of               Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde, v Council of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 764/97 of 23 April 1997                European Union (Agents: John Carbery and Antonio
introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of              Tanca) Ð application for annulment of Article 2 of
rice originating in the overseas countries and territories           Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December
(OJ L 112, 29.4.1997, p. 3) and, secondly, for an order              1997 authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar beet
requiring the Community to pay compensation for the                  producers and abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002
losses allegedly suffered by the applicant following the             marketing year (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court
adoption of the abovementioned regulation and of                     (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997                    of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and R. García-
introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of              Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H.
rice originating in the overseas countries and territories           Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 December 1998,
(OCTs) (OJ L 151, 10.6.1997, p. 8) and, in Case                      the operative part of which is a follows:
T-179/97, for annulment of the latter regulation Ð the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M.
Jaeger, President of the Third Chamber, K. Lenaerts and J.           1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
16 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             2. The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the
                                                                          costs.
1. Cases T-163/97 Netherlands Antilles v Council and                 (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
     Commission and T-179/97 Netherlands Antilles v
     Council, are disjoined.
2. Proceedings in T-163/97 Netherlands Antilles v
     Council and Commission are stayed pending delivery
     of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     C-301/97 Netherlands v Council.
                                                                                          of 8 December 1998
3. Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-179/97 Netherlands             in Case T-39/98: Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI
     Antilles v Council, in order to enable the Court of                 SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
     Justice to rule on the application for annulment.               (Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 Ð Provision abolishing
                                                                     national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the
4. The costs are reserved.                                           marketing year 2001/2002 Ð Action for annulment Ð
                                                                                             Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997 and OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                             (1999/C 71/51)
                                                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T-39/98: Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI
                                                                     SpA, established at Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     SpA, established at Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo SpA,
                      of 8 December 1998                             established at Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,
                                                                     established at Termoli (Italy) and SocietaÁ Fondiaria
in Case T-38/98: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori
                                                                     Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established at Cesena
   (ANB) and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                     (Italy), represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, of the Rome
(Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 Ð Provision abolishing                   Bar, and by Gualtiero Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of
national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the            the Bologna Bar, with an address for service in
marketing year 2001/2002 Ð Action for annulment Ð                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen,
                         Inadmissibility)                            22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde, v Council of the European Union
                                                                     (Agents: John Carbery and Antonio Tanca) Ð application
                         (1999/C 71/50)                              for annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                     No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997 authorising Portugal to
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      grant aid to sugar beet producers and abolishing all State
                                                                     aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year (OJ L 353,
                                                                     24.12.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber,
In Case T-38/98: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori                 Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura
(ANB), established in Rome, Francesco Coccia, residing at            Ramos, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili,
Manfredonia (Italy), and Vincenzo Di Giovine, residing at            P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/27
made an order on 8 December 1998, the operative part of             the maximum guaranteed quantity, the limitation on new
which is as follows:                                                aid-eligible planting, the termination of the scheme for
                                                                    small producers and the option of private storage aid as a
                                                                    means of stabilising markets. Moreover, the adjustments
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                    objected to were approved in June 1998, to come into
                                                                    force in the marketing year starting on 1 November 1998
2. The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the              and there is no provision for transitional arrangements or
     costs.                                                         phasing, nor any compensatory or complementary
                                                                    measures     which     might     palliate   the    immediate
                                                                    consequences in the sector. Also, the reforms may be
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                    abolished or replaced within three years, the period of
                                                                    validity of the contested regulation, which of course
                                                                    creates uncertainty in the sector, which will not only have
                                                                    to adjust to the new framework of rules very quickly but
                                                                    will also lack the slightest certainty that the new
                                                                    arrangements will endure.
Action brought on 20 October 1998 by Unión de
PequenÄos Agricultores against Council of the European
                             Union                                  In support of its claims, the applicant makes the following
                                                                    submissions:
                       (Case T-173/98)
                        (1999/C 71/52)
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, in that the
                                                                        reasons given by the Council are not only inadequate
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                          and insufficient but are also fundamentally
                                                                        inappropriate and contradictory. In fact, the describe
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 as mere adaptations and adjustments' measures like
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              those mentioned above is to strain the natural
Communities on 20 October 1998 by Unión de PequenÄos                    meaning of the words unacceptably. Similarly, the
Agricultores, represented by Javier Ledesma Bartret and                 reasons given cannot be anything but unfocused given
JoseÂ Ma JimeÂnez Laiglesia y de OnÄate, both of the Madrid             the lack of reliable information for structuring the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of                  reforms, as is expressly recognised in the first recital to
Concepción Llaser Moyano, 22 Rue Wenkelhiel                             the contested regulation.
(Dalheim).
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 39(1) of the Treaty, in that the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                   contested     regulation    has      chosen    manifestly
should:                                                                 inappropriate means to attain the CAP objectives
                                                                        mentioned      in    that   Article.    Moreover,       the
                                                                        abovementioned regulation's sole purpose is budgetary
Ð declare this action for annulment admissible in
                                                                        containment, which, however legitimate it might be, is
     accordance with Article 173 of the Treaty;
                                                                        not included amongst those mentioned in Article 39(1).
                                                                        Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council has
Ð Declare void Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of                    exceeded its margin of discretion in expressly
     20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC (1)                 recognising in the first recital in the preamble to the
     on the establishment of a common organisation of the               regulation that the information used is unreliable,
     market in oils and fats, with the exception of the aid             thereby raising the question whether the future
     scheme for table olives provided for in Article 5(4) of            consequences of the measures adopted have been
     Regulation No 136/66/EEC as amended by the                         responsibly evaluated.
     regulation at issue in these proceedings; and
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 39(2) of the Treaty. In the
Ð Order the Council to pay the costs.                                   applicant's opinion, the Council has not taken account
                                                                        of elements which are vital to regulation of the olive
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     oil market, and has not given reasons for the need for
                                                                        urgent reform; on the contrary it has adopted a
                                                                        measure which, in view of its urgent and peremptory
The applicant association, which represents and acts in the             nature, is absolutely exceptional.
interests of small farmers opposes the changes to the
common market organisation for olives brought about by
the contested regulation. In its view, the measures                 Ð Infringement of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, in four
contemplated in that regulation cannot be described as                  respects. First, it deals in a discriminatory manner
mere adjustments but amount to a veritable structural and               with small producers and traditional olive growers
definitive overhaul of the olive oil sector. The applicant              since they, being in circumstances different from those
refers in that connection to the elimination of intervention            of the big producers, cannot be treated in the same
and consumption aid, the adoption of a national basis for               way. Also, the contested regulation contains