CELEX: C1998/137/40
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo di Giovine v. Council of the European Union (Case T-38/98)

C 137/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.5.98
    Council Decision 97/803 pursuant to Articles 173 and                provision in question is that it is an anticipatory decision
    174 of the EC Treaty, and                                           on aid, residual aid, with effect from the year 2000, for
                                                                        the southern region, the only area for which no provision
                                                                        was made for aid to be reduced to zero during the
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                        currency of Regulation No 1105/95.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The applicants rely on the following pleas in law:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those raised in Case T-310/97, Nederlandse Antillen v.                  Ð lack of any statement of reasons. Since the 14th recital
Council of the European Union (2).                                           in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1101/95
                                                                             clearly indicates the essential reasons for maintaining a
(1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.                                             significant level of adjustment aid for sugar-beet
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                               growing in the south until 2000/2001, it is not clear
                                                                             how it can possibly now be presumed now that those
                                                                             reasons will no longer be valid after 2001. Rather, it is
                                                                             clear that at least the climatic and soil conditions of
                                                                             the area, expressly taken into account in the
                                                                             abovementioned recital, are bound to persist,
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Associazione
Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo di
                                                                        Ð infringement of essential procedural requirements, in
         Giovine v. Council of the European Union
                                                                             that, since the contested Article 2 operates as a
                         (Case T-38/98)                                      decision specific to the south of Italy rather than as a
                          (98/C 137/40)                                      regulatory provision in the strict sense, the Italian
                                                                             State should have been consulted so that it could
                                                                             submit observations. That applies also because of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                              importance and essential nature of the problems of
                                                                             agriculture in the south in the context of the national
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      economy and the adverse effects which outright
brought before the Court of First Instance on 5 March                        abolition of aid might entail for the south,
1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco
Coccia and Vincenzo di Giovine, represented by Luigi
Filippo Paolucci and Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna                Ð misuse of powers. In this case the purpose pursued is
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        incomprehensible, above all regarding timing and
chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.                     regarding the divergence, again from the temporal
                                                                             point of view, between the decision and its frame of
                                                                             reference. This is also borne out by the fact that such
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                        a clear anticipation of a decision which should not
should:                                                                      have been adopted until 2001 and then with reference
                                                                             to the situation prevailing at that time could
Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/                        improperly constitute a predetermined frame of
    97 of 15 December 1997,                                                  reference inappropriate for any manoeuvring regarding
                                                                             Community production quotas assigned to each
                                                                             Member State. Finally, as regards the progressive
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      removal of existing disparities, described by Article 39
                                                                             of the Treaty as an essential aim of the CAP, it is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          difficult to see how it can now be assumed that in
                                                                             2001 the structural imbalances in agriculture and
                                                                             industry will have disappeared, the fact being that
The applicants, the association protecting the interests of                  natural disparities will remain because of their
beet-growers throughout Italy, and beet-growers operating                    inherent characteristics.
directly in the south, within the meaning of the regional
diversification criteria laid down in Article 46 of
Regulation (EC) No 1785/81, as amended by Regulation                    (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995
                                                                            amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common
(EC) No 1101/95 (1), seek the annulment of Article 2 of
                                                                            organisation of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation
Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 (2) in so far as it provides for                 (EEC) No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the
the abolition of any adjustment aid for the sugar-beet                      production refund on certain sugar products used in the
sector, with effect from the marketing year 2001/2002.                      chemical industry (OJ L 110, 17.5.1995, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997
                                                                            authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar-beet producers and
According to the applicants, the contested provision                        abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year
predominantly affects beet-growing areas in the southern                    (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).
region of Italy, thereby being in the nature of an
individual decision rather than a regulation in the true
sense. From that standpoint, the essential feature of the