CELEX: C1998/137/39
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 March 1998 by Aruba against the Council of the European Union (Case T-36/98)

2.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/17
1. dismisses the application for interim measures;                Communities in accordance with Article 47(1) of the EC
                                                                  Statute of the Court of Justice.
2. reserves the costs.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities of 25 November 1997 (K (97) 3620),
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð declare that the applicant's case is one of hardship
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
                      of 2 March 1998                                  No 404/93.
in Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice v. Commission of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  European Communities
(Temporary member of staff Ð Suspension Ð Suspension              In 1991 the applicant made investments in a banana-
        of operation Ð No need to give a decision)                ripening centre. In its view there had at that time been no
                                                                  grounds at all to suppose that the market in bananas
                        (98/C 137/37)
                                                                  might be affected by Commission intervention or other
                                                                  regulatory measures. When the proposal for the
              (Language of the case: French)                      organisation of the market in bananas was put forward all
                                                                  the applicant's investments had already been made. The
In Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice, a member of the               reference years used as a basis, which have caused the
temporary staff at the Commission of the European                 applicant heavy losses, unfairly place it at a disadvantage.
Communities, represented by Ariane Tornel and Jean-NoeÈl
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        Furthermore, the organisation of the market has resulted
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de                   in improper interference with the applicant's business
Cessange, against Commission of the European                      enterprise which has been set up and carried on, because a
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                special sacrifice is expected of the applicant, in contrast to
Currall) Ð application for suspension of the operation of         other traders. It simultaneously follows, moreover, that the
the decision of the Commission of the European                    applicant and its shareholders and management are being
Communities of 12 November 1997 seeking to maintain               denied the right freely to choose their trade, without
the suspension imposed on the applicant pursuant to               reasons which would justify such a difference in treatment
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and the second                being apparent.
paragraph of Article 49(1) of the conditions of
employment of other servants of the European
Communities Ð the President of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 2 March 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                  Action brought on 2 March 1998 by Aruba against the
1. there is no need to adjudicate on the application;                            Council of the European Union
                                                                                          (Case T-36/98)
2. costs are reserved.
                                                                                           (98/C 137/39)
                                                                                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Action brought on 3 February 1998 by Hermanek &
                                                                  Communities on 2 March 1998 by Aruba, represented by
    Rademacher GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                  Mr P. V. F. Bos and Mr M. Slotboom, with an address for
                  European Communities
                                                                  service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Loesch & Wolter,
                       (Case T-26/98)                             11, rue Goethe.
                        (98/C 137/38)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  Ð annul Council Decision 97/803 of 24 November
An action against the Commission of the European                       1997 (1) pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Treaty,
Instance of the European Communities on 3 February
1998 by Hermanek & Rademacher GmbH, Cologne,                      or, in the alternative,
represented by, and with an address for service at the
offices of, Hubert Weber, Rechtsanwalt, 14, Zülpicher             Ð annul paragraphs 31, 32, 53 (in so far as they concern
Platz, Cologne. The application was transmitted to the                 Article 232(1), first and second indent, of Council
Registry of the Court of First Instance of the European                Decision 91/482/EEC), 54 and 55 of Article 1 of
 ---pagebreak--- 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