CELEX: C1998/151/21
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-44/98)

C 151/10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.5.98
Communities on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free                   3. Article 240(1) and (3) of Decision 91/482/EEC
Zone), established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by                  precludes an amendment of that Decision after
G. van der Wal, lawyer with right of audience before the                 1 March 1995 or, at least, an amendment with effect
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service                   from 1 December 1997;
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, of the
Luxembourg Bar, 31 Grand-Rue.                                       4. breach of the principle of legal certainty (principle of
                                                                         legitimate expectations): absence of transitional period
                                                                         and transitional measures;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    5. insufficient and incomplete statement of reasons.
1. annul Council Decision 97/803/EC (1) or, at least, the
    amendments to Articles 101, 102 and 108 of Council
                                                                    For the reasons set out in pleas 1 to 5 above, the applicant
    Decision 91/482/EEC (2) and to Article 6 of Annex II
                                                                    considers Decision 97/803/EC, or at least the restrictions
    to Decision 91/482/EEC and the insertion of
                                                                    on imports contained therein, to be a serious breach of
    Article 108b into Decision 91/482/EEC (paragraphs 27
                                                                    superior rules of law for the protection of the applicant's
    to 32 of Decision 97/803/EC);
                                                                    interests.
2. hold that the Community is responsible for the loss              The applicant brings this action as a separate action in
    suffered by Emesa as a result of the fact that the              addition to the application for annulment lodged by it
    importation of sugar from the OCT into the                      (T-44/98).
    Community has been prevented or restricted since
    1 December 1997 as a consequence of Decision 97/                (1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.
    803/EC;                                                         (2) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1. Corrigendum OJ L 15, 23.1.1993,
                                                                        p. 33.
3. order the parties to reach closer agreement as to the
    extent of Emesa's loss and, if no agreement can be
    reached in that respect, order the continuation of
    proceedings within a period to be specified by the
    Court of First Instance in order to determine the
    extent of the loss or, at least order the Community to          Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free
    pay the provisionally estimated and still to be                 Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
    estimated loss referred to in paragraphs 185 to 197 of                                   Communities
    the application; in the alternative order the                                          (Case T-44/98)
    Community to pay fair compensation, to be
                                                                                            (98/C 151/21)
    determined by the Court of First Instance, plus interest
    at the rate specified in paragraph 97;
                                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
4. order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 10 March 1998
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    by Emesa Sugar (Free Zone), established in Oranjestad,
                                                                    Aruba, represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer with a right
The applicant seeks compensation for the loss which it              of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with
claims to have suffered as a result of the restrictions on          an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
the importation of sugar of OCT origin introduced by the            A. May, of the Luxembourg Bar, 31 Grand-Rue.
decision referred to in point 1 of the forms of order
sought. It considers those articles to be contrary to               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community law on five grounds:
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission's Decision of 23 December
1. breach of the locking mechanism', whereby                            1997 (VI/51329),
    Community law precludes the introduction by the
    Community of non-temporary restrictions on trade                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    between the OCT and the Community, as a result of                    proceedings.
    which certain benefits laid down in the OCT decisions
    are (partially) withdrawn;
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. breach of the principle of proportionality, since Ð in           In the aforementioned Decision the Commission informed
    so far as is justified in law and in fact Ð temporary           the Hoofdproductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten on the
    measures should be adopted, rather than permanent               basis of the third paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation
    structural restrictions;                                        (EC) No 2553/97 (1) that the applicant's application dated
 ---pagebreak--- 16.5.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/11
19 December 1997 for an import licence in respect of                Instance on 10 March 1998 by the Council of European
sugar originating in the OCT had to be declared                     Municipalities and Regions, established in Paris,
inadmissible. That Regulation is intended to implement              represented by Daniel M. Tomasevic, of the Brussels Bar,
Article 108b, which was inserted into Decision 91/482/              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
EEC by Decision 97/803/EC.                                          chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
By way of a plea of illegality, the applicant submits that
Decision 97/803/EC, or at least the Articles thereof which          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
restrict the importation of sugar originating in the OCT, is        should:
contrary to Community law. The grounds are identical to
those in Case T-43/98.
Also by way of a plea of illegality, the applicant submits          Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
that Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 is contrary to                           Communities contained in debit note 97009405F
Community law:                                                           concerning ECOS Project No 91/00/29003, by which
                                                                         the Commission refuses to pay to the CEMR a balance
                                                                         of ECU 204 446 and claims from the CEMR a balance
1. since Decision 97/803/EC is unlawful, the Regulation                  of ECU 363 336,
    based on it is also invalid;
2. there is no valid legal basis for the requirement for an
    import licence laid down in the Regulation;                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
3. if (secondary) Community legislation does provide a
    legal basis for the requirement for a licence for the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    importation of OCT sugar, Articles 132 and 30 of the
    EC Treaty oppose it;
                                                                    The applicant, a federation of 37 national associations of
4. the licences in question are EUR-1 certificates, which
                                                                    local and regional authorities in 28 European countries,
    the OCT authorities have exclusive competence to
                                                                    contests the decision by which the Commission refuses to
    issue; that competence cannot be restricted by the
                                                                    approve certain expenses in relation to a project
    Commission;
                                                                    undertaken within the framework of the European City
                                                                    Cooperation System (ECOS) Programme. It states that it
5. the supplementary requirements laid down by the                  has been involved since the early 1960s in the
    Commission give rise to additional barriers to trade;           management of that programme, launched by the
                                                                    Commission's Directorate-General XIV, the purpose of
                                                                    which is to promote cooperation between local authorities
6. the Regulation is contrary to the WTO and the other              of the European Union and those of the countries of
    agreements adopted in that context.                             Central and Eastern Europe.
Furthermore, the Regulation only entered into force on
1 January 1998 and, in the applicant's opinion, could not
therefore serve as a basis for the decision.                        As regards the facts of the case, the applicant claims that
                                                                    the ECOS Programme gave rise to a first decision to grant
                                                                    Community aid to it, notified on 10 December 1991, and
(1) OJ L 349, 19.12.1997, p. 26.
                                                                    that the Commission even decided subsequently to grant
                                                                    additional aid. On 19 April 1996 the applicant received a
                                                                    fax from the defendant signalling its approval of the final
                                                                    report.     However,       immediately    following      that
                                                                    communication, it became apparent that the defendant
                                                                    was starting to change its attitude regarding the project,
Action brought on 10 March 1998 by the Council of                   and as a result the contested decision was adopted.
European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-46/98)
                                                                    The applicant first alleges infringement of the obligation
                        (98/C 151/22)                               to state reasons, in that the defendant did not reply to any
                                                                    of the arguments set out in various letters, in particular
                                                                    the one which followed the meeting of 24 September
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1997. The Commission did not explain why certain
                                                                    supporting documents were not regarded as adequate even
An action against the Commission of the European                    though the Commission itself asked for them to be sent
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   to it.