CELEX: C2000/034/46
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-254/99: Action brought on 24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

C 34/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
Action brought on 24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l.                 — Improper examination of the case and misuse of powers.
    against Commission of the European Communities                            According to the applicant, the facts have clearly been
                                                                              distorted, essentially as a result of defective and incorrect
                                                                              examination of the case.
                        (Case T-254/99)
                                                                         — Breach of the principle of legal certainty and infringement
                         (2000/C 34/46)                                       of Articles 38 and 44 of Regulation No 4028/86.
                                                                         — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                             essential procedural requirements. The opinion given by
                                                                              the Fisheries Management Committee was never disclosed
                                                                              to the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l., represented by Paolo
Piva, of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s               laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
chambers, 7 Val Ste Croix.                                                   different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                             operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                             existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, P. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                             Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the
— Annul the decision of 5 August 1999 cancelling the                         fisheries and aquaculture sector (OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7).
    contribution granted to Ca’Pasta S.r.l. by Commission                (3) OJ 1997 C 387, p. 23.
    decision C(91)654/97 of 29 April 1991;
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
These proceedings relate to the grant of aid to the applicant            Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelfbe-
company to encourage structural improvements in the fishing              dieningsgroothandel C.V. against the Commission of the
sector and aquaculture. With a view to modernising an                                          European Communities
aquaculture unit at Contarina (Veneto), the applicant applied
for and obtained a Community contribution of
ITL 942 300 004, representing 40 % of the permitted expendi-                                        (Case T-258/99)
ture. Following an administrative check, involving Commission
representatives, it was discovered that the undertaking had                                          (2000/C 34/47)
been transferred without prior authorisation, the latter being
deemed necessary under Article 24 of Regulation
No 4253/88 (1). After completion of the procedure under
Article 44 of Regulation No 4028/86 (2) the Head of Unit of                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
Directorate General XIV adopted the contested measure,
confirming ‘continuation of the internal procedure with a view           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
to cancellation of the contribution and recovery of the amount           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
disbursed’. An action was brought against that decision,                 European Communities on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelf-
namely Case T-274/97 Ca’Pasta v Commission (3). An order                 bedieningsgroothandel C.V., established in Amsterdam
was made dismissing the action as inadmissible.                          (Netherlands), represented by I.G.F. Cath and K.J. Tattersall, of
                                                                         the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
This action is directed against the final decision whereby the           at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
defendant brought the administrative procedure to a close.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are the same as those put forward in the abovementioned Case             (a) annul, wholly or in part, the Commission’s decision of
T-274/97.                                                                     20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) concerning State aid
                                                                              granted by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the
                                                                              region bordering Germany, at least in so far as it concerns
The following claims are made, in particular:                                 the applicant, and, in so far as may be necessary, order
                                                                              such detailed arrangements and measures to be adopted as
— Breach of the principle of collegiality.                                    the Court shall think fit;