CELEX: C1997/166/39
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-31 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Sofivo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-76/97)

31 . 5 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 166/ 19
— declare, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, that            Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997
     Council Regulation ( EC ) No 71/97 is inapplicable in           by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ), Sofivo
     so far as it constitutes the legal basis for Regulation        Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
     No 88/97,                                                      established at Conde sur Vire ( France ), Denkavit France,
                                                                    established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,
— declare, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, that           established at Perigueux ( France ), Serval, established at
     Article 13 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 is           Sainte Eanne ( France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
     inapplicable in so far as it constitutes the legal basis       Bourgbarre ( France ), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand
     for Regulations ( EC ) No 71/97 and (EC ) No 88/97,             ( France ), Sica Ouest Elevage, established at Ploudaniel
                                                                    ( France ), Guinde, established at Montauban de Bretagne
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                            ( France ), Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot
                                                                    ( France ), Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 ( France ), Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau
                                                                    ( France ), Collet et Compagnie, established at
The applicant has already, with Case T-74/97, brought an            Chateaubourg ( France ), Kermene SA, established at Saint
action against the Council before the Court of First                Jacut du Mene ( France ), and Vals, established at
Instance of the European Communities .                              Champagne ( France ), represented by Philippe Denesle, of
                                                                    the Rouen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In the present action, the applicant challenges Commission          at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
Regulation (EC ) No 88/97 ( the 'Exemption Regulation'),
which lays down the detailed rules for the procedure for            The applicants claim that the Court should:
the exemption of undertakings provided for by Council
Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97 (the 'Reference Regulation').           — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 200/97
The Reference Regulation extended the duty originally                     adopted on 31 January 1997,
introduced for bicycles originating in the People's
Republic of China to the import of bicycle parts                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
originating in that country. Although the applicant does
not satisfy the factual preconditions for circumvention, it         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
was not granted exemption from the duty applicable in
the case of circumvention .                                         The applicants, who are also the applicants in Cases T-14/
                                                                    97, T-15/97, T-20/97 (^ and T-61/97 ( 2), are contesting the
The applicant contends that the Exemption Regulation                way in which, by establishing a supplementary early
should be annulled and relies thereby essentially on the            marketing premium in the beef and veal sector, Regulation
following grounds .                                                 ( EC ) No 200/97 ( 3 ) purports to tackle the unequal
                                                                    treatment and anti-competitive discrimination criticized in
The end-use system before the national customs                      the applications lodged in the cases cited above .
authorities introduced for importers by the Exemption
Regulation, which does not grant undertakings an                    According to the applicants, the Commission has adopted,
exemption automatically if they do not satisfy the factual          in the contested measure, the principle of the payment of
preconditions for circumvention but makes exemption                 a supplementary premium, which, although introducing a
dependent on further conditions, is not covered by                  differentiation as regards the amount of the aid,
Article 3 of the Reference Regulation and Article 13 of             nevertheless fails to remedy the unequal treatment and
Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 ( the 'Basic Regulation') and           anti-competitive discrimination in any way. In their view,
therefore lacks a legal basis .                                     the grant of a supplementary premium in the same
                                                                    amount, the sole consideration for which is the weight of
In addition, the applicant pleads in an ancillary claim the         the slaughtered animal, without taking into account any
inapplicability of the Reference Regulation and Article 13          other objective market factor, cannot restore a balance
of the Basic Regulation in so far as they constitute the            between competing products .
legal basis for the Exemption Regulation. The applicant
relies in that regard essentially on the arguments already          The applicants have stated in their previous applications
made in Case T-74/97 .                                              that, since the average carcase weight qualifying for the
                                                                    premium may vary from one Member State to the next,
                                                                    without such variation being justified by objective,
                                                                    relevant divergences, the provisions in issue did not
                                                                    comply with Article 40 of the Treaty. In the contested act,
                                                                    however, the Commission once again adopts reference
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Sofivo and Others                weights without providing any objective data .
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-76/97 )                             In addition, however, and as their main point, the
                         ( 97/C 166/39 )                            applicants state that, whilst the Commission is right in its
                                                                    view that production no longer meets normal demand in
               (Language of the case: French)                       the market, the provisions adopted by it cannot remedy
                                                                    the effect under consideration . The supplementary
An action against the Commission of the European                    premium of ECU 10 per 108 kilograms in respect of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   animals reared in France does not in any way permit the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/20              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   31 . 5 . 97
restoration of competition with, for example, animals                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reared in the Netherlands, which, at a weight of 138
kilograms, will be capable of being sold on the French                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
market at a higher price, having regard not only to the                      Case T- 16/97 ( M.
number of additional kilograms but also to the higher
price per kilogram paid for animals with superior physical                   (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
characteristics, for which a premium of ECU 60 is to be
paid .
O OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, pp . 20, 21 and 22 respectively.
( 2 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal .
( 3 ) Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 200/97 of 31 January 1997              Action brought on 28 March 1997 by F. Javier Maetzu
      amending Regulation (EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down detailed             Nieva against the . Commission of the European
      rules for the application of premium schemes in the beef and                                         Communities
      veal sector ( OJ No L 31 , 1 . 2 . 1997, p. 62 ).                                                 ( Case T-78/97 )
                                                                                                          ( 97/C 166/41 )
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Jose Baiges Planas                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
and 16 others against the Commission of the European                         Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
                               Communities                                   by F. Javier Maetzu Nieva, residing in Brussels,
                                                                             represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                            ( Case T-77/97)                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                              ( 97/C 166/40                                  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                                  rejecting the applicant's request that it give
An action against the Commission of the European                                  consideration to the possible application of Article 31
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997
by Jose Baiges Planas, residing in Brussels, Viviane Baretti-                — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
Piazzi, residing at Rhode St Genese ( Belgium ), David                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Broderick, residing in Brussels, Alessandro Buttice,                              expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
residing in Brussels, Peter Grasmann, residing in Brussels,
Timothy Hayes, residinig at Wezembeek-Oppem                                  — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
 ( Belgium ), Louis Hersom, residing in Brussels, Owen
Jones, residing in Brussels, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot,                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
residing at Bereldange ( Luxembourg), Saturno Mallia,
residing at Overijse ( Belgium ), Fernardo Mazza, residing
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Yasmine Pire, residing in
                                                                             Case T- 16/97 (').
 Brussels, William Richer, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ),
Josefa Rodriguez Portero, residing in Brussels, Robert
                                                                             H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
 Smyth, residing at Sterrebeek ( Belgium), Alain Van
 Hamme, residing at Grimbergen ( Belgium ), and Fionnuala
Walker, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert
 Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de
 Nassau .
                                                                             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Michael A. Köhler
                                                                                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 The applicants claim that the Court should:                                                             ( Case T- 79/97 )
                                                                                                           ( 971C 166/42 )
 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request                                     (Language of the case: French)
       to be regraded,
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 — annul the Commission's                   decision    rejecting their       Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
        administrative complaint,                                             by Michael A. Köhler, residing at Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                              ( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .