CELEX: C1998/378/43
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Cantina Sociale di Dolianova and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-166/98)

C 378/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.12.98
The applicant accepts that the fact that a Member State                 by the applicants in respect of aid for distillation in
has no sea ports may make it necessary to finance the                   the 1982/1983 marketing year;
costs of transport between the place in which the cereals
the subject of the invitation to tender are situated and the
actual place of exit. That is not to say that this must             Ð order the European Commission, possibly also on the
happen automatically, but only in certain exceptional                   ground of unjust enrichment and/or by way of
cases. Consequently, the reason given in the penultimate                compensation for damage within the meaning of
recital in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1666/98,                  Article 178 of the Treaty, to pay the applicants a
justifying the appropriateness of financing such costs in              certain amount;
view of Austria's geographical position', appear to be too
abrupt. Luxembourg, which is the only other Community
country lacking a sea port, has never indicated any need
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the cost.
for a similar exception to be provided. On the other hand,
the idea that, in those Member States which do not have
sea ports, the bids of competitors should be penalised by
higher transport costs is based on a conception still linked        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
to national markets. According to the applicant, the
defendant appears to forget that Austria now forms part
of a single territory for customs and commercial purposes.          The applicant wine-cellars in the present case contest the
                                                                    decision whereby the defendant refused to pay an amount
                                                                    due to them as Community aid for the 1982/1983
In conclusion, the applicant argues that the Community's            marketing year under the legislation in force concerning
assumption of all transport costs, irrespective of the port         preventive distillation in the wine sector. The applicants
in which the goods are to be loaded for export, authorises          state in this regard that the abovementioned aid was not
trade to be diverted towards the ports of northern Europe,          received as a result of an omission by the distillery which
to the detriment of those of the Mediterranean, thereby             had received the wine and that it was returned in full to
distorting competition even between the various ports and           the Commission itself as a result of the repayment of the
providers of services operating in each of those ports.             security lodged by AIMA, the intervention agency.
(1) OJ L 191, 31.7.1993, p. 76.
(2) OJ L 211, 29.7.1998, p. 12.
                                                                    The applicants challenge in the first place the defendant's
                                                                    argument that the aid concerned by Commission
                                                                    Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 is payable to the distiller
                                                                    and not to the producers, since the provision of aid
                                                                    benefits, in the first place, distillers by enabling them to be
                                                                    compensated for the high buying-in price of the wine'. In
                                                                    their view, following perusal of that regulation and in the
Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Cantina Sociale di
                                                                    light of the general principles governing the system of aids
Dolianova and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                    in the wine sector, it is evident that the intended recipients
                    European Communities
                                                                    of the Community contribution are the producers
                       (Case T-166/98)                              supplying the wine. From that angle, it is clear that the
                                                                    scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82, in
                        (98/C 378/43)
                                                                    conjunction with Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/
                                                                    79, is to pursue the general interest of the common market
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     in eliminating the production of low-quality wine within
                                                                    the Community, encouraging producers of low-quality
                                                                    wine to send it for preventive distillation by providing aid
An action against the Commission of the European                    enabling them to sell it at market prices.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October
1998 by Cantina Sociale di Dolianova, Cantina Sociale               In any event, the discretion enjoyed by the Member States
della Texenta, Cantina Sociale della Marmila U.V.A.,                as to the choice of modality provided for by Articles 9 and
Cantina Sociale di Santa Maria La Palma (formerly                   10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 cannot undermine its
Cantina Sociale della Riforma agraria di Alghero) and               purpose, as set out above. It is not possible to argue that
Cantina Sociale del Vermentino di Monti, represented by             the unlawful conduct of Distilleria Agricola Industriale,
Carlo Dore and Giovanni Dore, of the Cagliari Bar, with             which consisted solely in not providing AIMA with proof
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             that payment of the price was made to the producers
Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.                                    (inasmuch as the full price was not paid), could to any
                                                                    extent have compromised the rights of the producers
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         themselves to receive such aid. In the view of the
                                                                    applicants, any interpretation to the contrary would entail
                                                                    a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Ð declare unlawful Commission Decision VI B-I-3 M 4/
    97PVP of 31 July 1998, received by mail on 14 August
    1998, whereby it rejected the claim for payment sent