CELEX: C1999/071/52
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 October 1998 by Unión de Pequeños Agricultores against Council of the European Union (Case T-173/98)

13.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/27
made an order on 8 December 1998, the operative part of             the maximum guaranteed quantity, the limitation on new
which is as follows:                                                aid-eligible planting, the termination of the scheme for
                                                                    small producers and the option of private storage aid as a
                                                                    means of stabilising markets. Moreover, the adjustments
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                    objected to were approved in June 1998, to come into
                                                                    force in the marketing year starting on 1 November 1998
2. The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the              and there is no provision for transitional arrangements or
     costs.                                                         phasing, nor any compensatory or complementary
                                                                    measures     which     might     palliate   the    immediate
                                                                    consequences in the sector. Also, the reforms may be
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                    abolished or replaced within three years, the period of
                                                                    validity of the contested regulation, which of course
                                                                    creates uncertainty in the sector, which will not only have
                                                                    to adjust to the new framework of rules very quickly but
                                                                    will also lack the slightest certainty that the new
                                                                    arrangements will endure.
Action brought on 20 October 1998 by Unión de
PequenÄos Agricultores against Council of the European
                             Union                                  In support of its claims, the applicant makes the following
                                                                    submissions:
                       (Case T-173/98)
                        (1999/C 71/52)
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, in that the
                                                                        reasons given by the Council are not only inadequate
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                          and insufficient but are also fundamentally
                                                                        inappropriate and contradictory. In fact, the describe
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 as mere adaptations and adjustments' measures like
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              those mentioned above is to strain the natural
Communities on 20 October 1998 by Unión de PequenÄos                    meaning of the words unacceptably. Similarly, the
Agricultores, represented by Javier Ledesma Bartret and                 reasons given cannot be anything but unfocused given
JoseÂ Ma JimeÂnez Laiglesia y de OnÄate, both of the Madrid             the lack of reliable information for structuring the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of                  reforms, as is expressly recognised in the first recital to
Concepción Llaser Moyano, 22 Rue Wenkelhiel                             the contested regulation.
(Dalheim).
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 39(1) of the Treaty, in that the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                   contested     regulation    has      chosen    manifestly
should:                                                                 inappropriate means to attain the CAP objectives
                                                                        mentioned      in    that   Article.    Moreover,       the
                                                                        abovementioned regulation's sole purpose is budgetary
Ð declare this action for annulment admissible in
                                                                        containment, which, however legitimate it might be, is
     accordance with Article 173 of the Treaty;
                                                                        not included amongst those mentioned in Article 39(1).
                                                                        Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council has
Ð Declare void Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of                    exceeded its margin of discretion in expressly
     20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC (1)                 recognising in the first recital in the preamble to the
     on the establishment of a common organisation of the               regulation that the information used is unreliable,
     market in oils and fats, with the exception of the aid             thereby raising the question whether the future
     scheme for table olives provided for in Article 5(4) of            consequences of the measures adopted have been
     Regulation No 136/66/EEC as amended by the                         responsibly evaluated.
     regulation at issue in these proceedings; and
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 39(2) of the Treaty. In the
Ð Order the Council to pay the costs.                                   applicant's opinion, the Council has not taken account
                                                                        of elements which are vital to regulation of the olive
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     oil market, and has not given reasons for the need for
                                                                        urgent reform; on the contrary it has adopted a
                                                                        measure which, in view of its urgent and peremptory
The applicant association, which represents and acts in the             nature, is absolutely exceptional.
interests of small farmers opposes the changes to the
common market organisation for olives brought about by
the contested regulation. In its view, the measures                 Ð Infringement of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, in four
contemplated in that regulation cannot be described as                  respects. First, it deals in a discriminatory manner
mere adjustments but amount to a veritable structural and               with small producers and traditional olive growers
definitive overhaul of the olive oil sector. The applicant              since they, being in circumstances different from those
refers in that connection to the elimination of intervention            of the big producers, cannot be treated in the same
and consumption aid, the adoption of a national basis for               way. Also, the contested regulation contains
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/28               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
    discriminatory features regarding Spanish producers of         documents of the Centre for Information, Discussion and
    olive oil since a national guaranteed quantity has been        Exchange on Asylum (CIREA), which were requested
    fixed for Spain which falls far short of the yields of         pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    the last two years, and for Italy a national guaranteed        1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    quantity has been fixed which substantially exceeds its        documents requested were as follows:
    production in the last marketing year. Similarly, the
    regulation discriminates against olive oil as a
    Mediterranean product as compared with other                   (a) Common Foreign and Security Policy reports, analyses
    continental products covered by market organisations.              or evaluations for the years 1994 up to and including
    Finally, the reform at issue is not based on common                1998 which had been drawn up by the CIREA or in
    criteria or uniform calculation methods.                           connection with the CIREA, with regard to the
                                                                       situation in those third countries or regions from
                                                                       which a large number of asylum-seekers originate or
Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality. Attention is             in which they reside;
    drawn in particular to the abolition of the export
    regime, which the applicant describes as manifestly
    disproportionate.                                              (b) any reports of joint missions or reports supplied to the
                                                                       CIREA by one or more Member States, concerning
                                                                       missions to third countries by such Member State or
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the right to                  States;
property and infringement of the principle of freedom to
engage in an economic activity.
                                                                   (c) a list drawn up by the CIREA or in connection with
                                                                       the CIREA of those contact persons who are involved
(1) OJ L 210, 20.7.1998, p. 92.                                        with asylum cases in the Member States, together with
                                                                       any changes made to that list subsequently.
                                                                   The applicant submits that the refusal by the Council to
                                                                   grant access to the documents requested infringes
Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer
         against the Council of the European Union                 Ð Council Decision 93/731/EC, and more in particular
                                                                       articles 4(1) and 1(2) thereof,
                       (Case T-188/98)
                        (1999/C 71/53)
                                                                   Ð the obligation to state reasons and
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð the fundamental principle of Community law that
                                                                       European citizens should be granted the widest and
An action against the Council of the European Union was                fullest possible access to the EU Institutions'
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             documents.
Communities on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Me Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Micro Leader
                                                                   Business (M.L.B.) against the Commission of the
                                                                                      European Communities
Ð annul the contested decision whereby the Council
                                                                                         (Case T-198/98)
    refuses to grant access to the document requested by
    the applicant;                                                                        (1999/C 71/54)
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant                         (Language of the case: French)
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
    First Instance, including the costs of any intervening
    parties.                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                1998 by Micro Leader Business (M.L.B.), whose registered
                                                                   office is at Aulnay sous Bois (France), represented by
                                                                   Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar, with an
The applicant seeks the annulment of a refusal by the              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Council of the European Union to grant access to certain           Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.