CELEX: C2001/173/62
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-64/01: Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

C 173/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.6.2001
Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Marie-Josée Bollen-                   Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-
            dorff against the European Parliament                        Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European
                                                                         Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-60/01)
                                                                                                   (Case T-64/01)
                        (2001/C 173/61)                                                           (2001/C 173/62)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             An action against the Council of the European Union and the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission of the European Communities was brought
on 13 March 2000 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing at                 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Bertrange (Luxembourg), represented by Laurent Mosar, avo-               on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH,
cat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                          established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gerrit
                                                                         Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by which the appointing authority
      took the view that the applicant’s absence from 21 March           —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
      2000 to 30 April 2000 was irregular and deducted 194                     EUR 1 358 228 together with interest thereon at the rate
      working hours from her annual leave entitlement;                         of 3,75 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
                                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                               occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                          least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 1 358 228 ;
                                                                         —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
                                                                               applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
                                                                               Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
                                                                               contained therein;
The applicant’s incapacity for work, certified by two doctors,
was contested by the institution’s medical officer. Those two            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
doctors then confirmed their certificates, and the applicant
was absent during the period covered by the certificates. Later
on, the applicant discovered that the time for which she had
been absent during the period in question had been deducted              Pleas in law and main arguments
from her annual leave entitlement.
                                                                         The applicant has for many years sold bananas from third
                                                                         countries to customers in Austria, Finland and Sweden.
In support of her claim, the applicant maintains that the
deduction decision was adopted in breach of Articles 59 and
60 [of the Staff Regulations] and that it therefore has no legal         The action concerns the calculation of the applicant’s reference
basis whatever.                                                          quantities for 1999. According to the applicant, that calcu-
                                                                         lation is characterised by three special features which derogate
                                                                         from the rules governing the organisation of the market
                                                                         applying in respect of the years prior to 1999, and as a result
According to the applicant, no decision concerning a
                                                                         of which the market operators existing in the Community up
deduction from her annual leave entitlement was notified to
                                                                         until 31 December 1994 have been placed at a disadvantage,
her by the head of the Personnel Division, and the appointing
                                                                         whilst advantageous treatment has been afforded to operators
authority at no time communicated to the applicant any
                                                                         in the new Member States. First, the rule governing the
decision which would have enabled her to comment on the
                                                                         determination of the reference period has been changed.
fact that the certificates were contested. Consequently, the
                                                                         Next, in calculating the reference quantities for 1999, the
European Parliament has infringed Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                         Community proceeded on the basis of excessively high quanti-
Regulations.
                                                                         ties in so far as concerns market operators in Austria, Finland
                                                                         and Sweden. Lastly, although the reference quantities for 1999
                                                                         should have been calculated in accordance with Articles 3 and
                                                                         5 of Regulation No 1442/93 (1), they were in fact calculated in
                                                                         accordance with the criterion of the so-called ‘actual importer’.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/35
The applicant claims that those three special features have                 Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Internationale
resulted in the applicant and operators in a similar position               Fruchtimportgesellschaft Weichert & Co. against the
being granted lower reference quantities than they would have               Council of the European Union and the Commission of
received if the rules governing the organisation of the market                                 the European Communities
had continued to be applied without being changed.
                                                                                                      (Case T-65/01)
                                                                                                     (2001/C 173/63)
The applicant seeks, by way of compensation, to be placed in
the position in which it would have been had its reference
quantity for 1999 been calculated in accordance with the                                        (Language of the case: German)
unchanged rules governing the organisation of the market.
                                                                            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 its claims, it asserts that the Community has                 on 19 March 2001 by Internationale Fruchtimportgesellschaft
infringed Article 6 of Regulation No 1924/95 (2) and the                    Weichert & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represent-
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by failing          ed by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service
to determine the applicant’s rights of access to the market in              in Luxembourg.
1999 in accordance with Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation
No 1442/93. In addition, it maintains that the Community has                The applicant claims that the Court should:
failed, in its formulation of the prohibition of retroactive effect,
to respect the requirement of legal certainty, in that it has               —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
retroactively applied the distribution formula prescribed by                      EUR 3 604 232 together with interest thereon at the rate
Regulation No 2362/98 (3) to reference quantities from the                        of 2,9 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
years 1994 to 1996.                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                                  occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
                                                                                  least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 3 604 232 ;
                                                                            —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
In addition, the special rules applying to operators in the new
                                                                                  applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Member States infringe the prohibition of discrimination laid
                                                                                  suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC;
                                                                                  Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
moreover, no adequate statement of reasons has been given.
                                                                                  contained therein;
                                                                            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
Lastly, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organisation has declared that the system for the allocation of             Pleas in law and main arguments
import licences, as laid down in Regulations Nos 1637/98 and
2362/98, is incompatible in certain essential respects with the             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
law governing the World Trade Organisation. In the applicant’s              advanced in Case T-64/01 (Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie
view, the Community has failed to respect the fact that it is               GmbH v Council and Commission).
bound by that decision.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements
    for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6).         Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1924/95 of 3 August 1995                             Tralli against the European Central Bank
    laying down transitional measures for the application of the tariff
    quota arrangements for imports of bananas as a result of the                                      (Case T-69/01)
    accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 185, p. 24).
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998                                         (2001/C 173/64)
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau
                                                                            (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                            Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte.