CELEX: C2000/135/45
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-56/00: Action brought on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit International Limited against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

13.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:             — Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of
                                                                              20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
                                                                              fisheries and aquaculture (3), as regards, in particular,
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)                      the obligation to provide for rational and responsible
     No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                     exploitation of live aquatic resources of the sea and the
     fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain              principle of relative stability;
     fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
     Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters               — Infringement of the precautionary principle provided for
     where limitations in catch are required and amending                     in Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
     Regulation (EC) No 66/98;
                                                                          — Infringement of Regulation No 685/95, cited above,
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of                     through transfer of a quota from one zone to another,
     Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                         given that the said regulation provides for the transfer of
     27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort                    quotas once a total allowable catch (TAC) has been fixed
     relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,               for both zones.
     on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council
     approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone              Finally, the applicants allege infringement of Article 6 of the
     VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                           European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
                                                                          Freedoms.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 341 of 31.12.1999, p. 89.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 71 of 31.3.1995, p. 5.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 92 of 16.4.1993, p. 51.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The applicants oppose the authorisation for the transfer of
3 000 tonnes of anchovies from ICES zones IX and X, CECAF
area 34.1.1., by the Portuguese Republic to the French Republic
to be fished in waters under French jurisdiction in ICES zone
VIII. That authorisation appears in part nine of Annex ID,                Action brought on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit
relating to anchovy in zones IX and X, CECAF 34.1.1., to                  International Limited against the Council of the European
Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999                  Union and the Commission of the European Communities
fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated
conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels,                                         (Case T-56/00)
in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending
Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (1).                                                                     (2000/C 135/45)
The applicants also allege the illegality of Council Regulation                              (Language of the case: English)
(EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the
fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and
resources (2).                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, they allege:                                  on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit International Limited,
                                                                          represented by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
— There is no res judicata in this case despite the fact that the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Court of Justice gave a ruling, in its judgment of 5 October
     1999, on the said transfer of quota carried out in 1995,             — order that the measure of the damages be the level of the
     and that there is no overlap with the contested regulations;             cost of the special export certificates or in the alternative
                                                                              propose other criteria on which the damage may be
                                                                              calculated;
— There is a manifest error in the assessment of the facts
     since the consequences of the scientific reports, as com-
     pared with other criteria, are underestimated;                       — order payment of interest on the damages caused at the
                                                                              appropriate level;
— The objectives of the common agricultural policy envisaged              — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the costs
     in Article 33 of the EC Treaty have been disregarded;                    of these proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou
                                                                                    against the Council of the European Union
The applicant in the present case is a member of the Dole                                           (Case T-60/00)
Group of companies which is a group of companies engaged
in the production, purchase, consignment and sale of green
third-country bananas to, and in, the European Community,                                          (2000/C 135/46)
within the meaning of Article 3 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1442/93, of June 1993, laying down delay rules for
the application of the arrangements for importing bananas
into the Community (1).                                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
The application concerns the damage suffered by the applicant              Communities on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou, resid-
through having to purchase export licences in the period from              ing at Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
1995 to 1998 in order to enable its agents to exercise rights              Bar.
to obtain import licences in order to sell bananas in the
Community. The applicant was entitled, through its agents, to
Category A banana import licences.                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of 5 July 1999 of the appointing
Regulation No 478/95(2) made the purchase and presentation                     authority refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation
of an export licence from certain countries a precondition for                 allowance;
the issue of the EC import licence.
                                                                           — annul the decision of 21 December 1999 by which the
                                                                               appointing authority rejects the applicant’s complaint that
                                                                               the contested decision should be annulled;
The European Court of Justice annulled Council Decision
94/800 (3) and the Commission Regulation No 478/95, to the
extent to which they discriminated between the different                   — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the expatriation
categories of operators set out in Council Regulation                          allowance as from 1 May 1999, minus, for the past, what
No 404/93 establishing the common organisation of the                          was granted to her by way of expatriation allowance;
market in bananas(4).
                                                                           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant submits that the discriminatory nature and the
illegality of the above mentioned measures have caused it                  Pleas in law and main arguments
substantial loss and damage and constitute a breach of a
superior rule of law for the protection of the applicant.
                                                                           The applicant, an official of Greek nationality at the Council,
                                                                           claims in particular that, contrary to the contested decision,
                                                                           her principal residence, during the period of reference, was
(1) OJ L 142 of 25.6.1993, p. 62.                                          Athens. Although she arrived in Belgium in 1987, her
(2) Regulation No 478/95, of 1 March 1995, on additional rules for         residence in Brussels was only provisional and limited for the
    the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/95 as regards      purposes of studying. The functions she exercised in the
    the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the          Schengen General Secretariat between 1993 and 1999 should
    Community and amending (EEC) No. 1442/92 (OJ 1995 L 49, of             not be taken into account in respect of occupation within an
    4.3.1995, p. 13).
(3) Council Decision 94/800, of 22 December 1994, concerning the
                                                                           international organisation referred to in the second indent of
    conclusion on behalf of the Community, as regards matters              Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
    whithin its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
    Round multilateral negociations (1986-1994) (OJ L 336, of
    23.12.1994, p. 1).                                                     In taking the contested decision, the defendant committed a
(4) OJ L 471 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                           breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular of the second
                                                                           paragraph of Article 25 and Article 69 thereof, and of Annex
                                                                           VII thereto.