CELEX: C2001/150/62
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-56/01: Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against European Central Bank

19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/31
The applicant requests compensation in respect of the loss                The Commission responded to that request with two consecu-
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission having                   tive refusals grounded on the requirements of ‘commercial
committed a fault for the purposes of Article 288 of the EC               secrecy’ and the ‘authorship rule’.
Treaty in awarding the contract to Frezza Belgium SA which
caused loss to the applicant, who was the only person to
have submitted a tender which complied with the product                   In the circumstances, the applicant takes the view that the
specification.                                                            Commission’s refusal on two separate occasions and for two
                                                                          contradictory reasons is unjustified and prevents an operator,
                                                                          whose economic activity is closely dependent on the market
                                                                          in bananas being regulated and in which the Commission has
                                                                          above all powers of oversight, from checking whether such
                                                                          regulation is being properly managed.
                                                                          In support of its arguments, the applicant claims infringement
                                                                          of the Code of Conduct adopted by the Commission by
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA soc.                          94/90/ECSC, EC, EURATOM and Declaration No 17 appended
coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Com-                      to the Final Act of the Maastricht Treaty, as well as abuse of
                            munities                                      powers.
                         (Case T-47/01)
                        (2001/C 150/61)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                               Tralli against European Central Bank
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA                                                    (Case T-56/01)
soc. coop. a.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Mariano
Paolin and Simonetta Donà, avvocati.
                                                                                                    (2001/C 150/62)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                              (Language of the case: German)
—     annul the decision of the Commission — contained in
      the letter of 31 July 2000 of the Director General for
      Agriculture and letter of 5 December 2000 of the                    An action against the European Central Bank was brought
      Secretary General — whereby access was refused to the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      documents referred to in the request submitted by Co-               on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau,
      Frutta on 27 June 2000 and again on 1 September 2000;               Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                          Silvia Mittländer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          1.    find that, in failing to respond in writing to the applicant
                                                                                in respect of his complaint, in accordance with a letter of
The applicant requested access to documents in the Com-                         5 February 2001, the defendant’s President infringed the
mission’s possession relating to the common organisation of                     last paragraph of Article 8.1.5 of the European Central
the market in bananas. That request was prompted by the fact                    Bank Staff Rules;
that it had come to the notice of the applicant that enormous
quantities of bananas had been imported into the Community                2.    in the event that some of the forms of order sought in
market under forged import licences or licences which had                       Case T-373/00 are refused:
been issued on the basis of false or erroneous reference
quantities. It therefore asked the Commission a copy of or, at
least, permission to consult on the premises, the lists of the                  —     annul the notice of dismissal issued by the defendant
operators registered in the Community or of the quantities                            of 29 November 2000;
they had respectively imported during the reference period
and therefore of the provisional reference quantity allocated to                —     find that the employment relationship between the
each of them, as well as the licences used and related                                parties continues to subsist unchanged beyond
documents.                                                                            31 December 2000;
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
      —     order the defendant to continue employing the               According to the applicant, there has been a clear breach of:
            applicant on the contractual terms as a security man;
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                             —     Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December
                                                                              1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt
                                                                              structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (1) and
                                                                              of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1956/91 of 21 June
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               1991 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                              Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 as regards
                                                                              measures to encourage the creation of joint enterprises (2);
The origin of the case is the same as in Cases T-373/00 (Tralli
v ECB, OJ C 61 of 24 February 2001, p. 61) and T-27/01
(Tralli v ECB, not yet published). The pleas in law and
arguments are the same as those advanced in these cases.                —     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 of 20 April
                                                                              1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                              decisions granting aid for projects concerning Com-
                                                                              munity measures to improve and adapt structures in the
                                                                              fisheries and aquaculture sector and in structural works
                                                                              in coastal waters (3).
                                                                        The applicant submits that the European Commission failed
Action brought on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı́as de                      to observe the procedure laid down in those regulations for
Armadores Reunidos S.A. against the Commission of the                   cases in which, on account of the need for supplementary
                    European Communities                                analysis of the conditions for payment, the payment of aid
                                                                        granted to a joint enterprise has to be suspended. The
                                                                        Commission’s breach arises from three facts: (1) it did not
                           (Case T-61/01)                               consult the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry; (2) it
                                                                        did not consult the Spanish authorities. Nor did it give them
                                                                        an opportunity to be involved in the suspension procedure;
                         (2001/C 150/63)                                (3) it did not adopt the suspension by means of a formal
                                                                        decision but merely by letter. According to Community case-
                                                                        law, a failure to observe an established procedure entails the
                                                                        nullity ab initio of the measures.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              The applicant draws attention to the fact that, as regards the
European Communities on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı́as de                Community’s liability, the three requirements laid down by
Armadores Reunidos S.A., established in Huelva (Spain),                 case-law are met in the present case: there is a wrongful act,
represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo (lawyer) and Mª Dolor-           actual harm and a causal link between the wrongful conduct
es Domı́nguez Pérez.                                                    and the damage caused. The compensation claimed is the
                                                                        accrued interest for late payment, in application of the
                                                                        principle established by case-law that the recipient of aid has a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             right, at the very least, to payment of interest in the case of an
                                                                        infringement of the applicable legislation.
—     order the European Commission to pay Vendedurı́as de
      Armadores Reunidos S.A. compensation for damage and
      loss caused by the delayed payment of a part of its aid;
                                                                        (1) OJ 1986 L 376 p. 7, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                   No 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (OJ 1990 L 380, p. 1) and
      pay the costs in their entirety.                                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 3946/92 of 19 December 1992 (OJ
                                                                            1992 L 401, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) OJ 1992 L 401, p. 1.
                                                                        (3) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action involves a claim alleging non-contractual liability
on the part of the Commission for the unlawful suspension of
payment of 20 % of the aid granted to the applicant, causing
it serious financial loss.