CELEX: C1998/358/38
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-151/98)

21.11.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/21
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Council                    Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Azienda
of European Municipalities and Regions against the                    Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara
         Commission of the European Communities                                  against Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-151/98)                                                       (Case T-152/98)
                        (98/C 358/38)                                                         (98/C 358/39)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 22 September 1998 by the Council of                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
European       Municipalities     and     Regions     (CEMR),         brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
established in Paris, represented by Daniel M. Tomasevic,             1998 by Azienda Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Vincenzo e Clara, represented by Massimo Moretto,
Luxembourg at the chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58                   Roberto Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice,
rue Charles Martel.                                                   Padua and Bari Bars respectively, with an address for
                                                                      service in Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue
                                                                      des Nerviens.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
should:
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European                should:
     Communities contained in debit note 97009405F
     concerning ECOS Project No 91/00/29003, issued on
     15 July 1998, by which the Commission refuses to pay
     to the CEMR a balance of ECU 204 446 and claims                  Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
     from the CEMR a balance of ECU 300 173;                              Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
                                                                          fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
                                                                          intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                              price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
                                                                          beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
                                                                          costs (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
The applicant, which is already contesting before the                     1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
Court of First Instance an initial debit note concerning the              standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
European City Cooperation System (ECOS) project, in
which the Commission refused to approve certain
expenses and effected a reduction of the Community co-                Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
financing granted in the context of the RECITE                            Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
programme (1), is seeking in the present case annulment of                of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
a fresh debit note, dated 15 July 1998, which purports to                 applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
cancel and replace the previous note. In that second note,                an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
the Commission is still refusing to pay to the applicant a
balance of ECU 204 446 and is claiming from the
applicant, not the sum of ECU 363 336 originally
demanded, but the sum of ECU 300 173.                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant states that, even though it does not consider
that its claim in Case T-46/98 has become devoid of                   The applicant in this case, an agricultural undertaking
purpose, it has had to bring the present action as a                  producing beet, contests Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 to
precautionary measure, in consequence of the position                 the extent to which, by treating Italy as a non-deficit area,
adopted by the Commission in the first case.                          within the meaning of the basic regulation applicable to
                                                                      the sugar sector, it fails to set a derived intervention price
                                                                      for white sugar for all areas of Italy. It adds that since the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                   establishment of the common organisation of the market
those advanced in Case T-46/98.                                       in sugar, Italy has always been regarded as a deficit area.
(1) Case T-46/98, OJ C 151, 16.5.1998, p. 11.
                                                                      In support of its claim, the applicant states, first, that
                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 is unlawful in that it