CELEX: C1998/358/39
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Azienda Agricola 'Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara against Council of the European Union (Case T-152/98)

21.11.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 358/21
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Council                    Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Azienda
of European Municipalities and Regions against the                    Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara
         Commission of the European Communities                                  against Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-151/98)                                                       (Case T-152/98)
                        (98/C 358/38)                                                         (98/C 358/39)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 22 September 1998 by the Council of                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
European       Municipalities     and     Regions     (CEMR),         brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
established in Paris, represented by Daniel M. Tomasevic,             1998 by Azienda Agricola Ponte S. Pietro' di Zardi
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   Vincenzo e Clara, represented by Massimo Moretto,
Luxembourg at the chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58                   Roberto Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice,
rue Charles Martel.                                                   Padua and Bari Bars respectively, with an address for
                                                                      service in Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue
                                                                      des Nerviens.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
should:
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European                should:
     Communities contained in debit note 97009405F
     concerning ECOS Project No 91/00/29003, issued on
     15 July 1998, by which the Commission refuses to pay
     to the CEMR a balance of ECU 204 446 and claims                  Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
     from the CEMR a balance of ECU 300 173;                              Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
                                                                          fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
                                                                          intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                              price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
                                                                          beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
                                                                          costs (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
The applicant, which is already contesting before the                     1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
Court of First Instance an initial debit note concerning the              standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
European City Cooperation System (ECOS) project, in
which the Commission refused to approve certain
expenses and effected a reduction of the Community co-                Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
financing granted in the context of the RECITE                            Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
programme (1), is seeking in the present case annulment of                of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
a fresh debit note, dated 15 July 1998, which purports to                 applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
cancel and replace the previous note. In that second note,                an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
the Commission is still refusing to pay to the applicant a
balance of ECU 204 446 and is claiming from the
applicant, not the sum of ECU 363 336 originally
demanded, but the sum of ECU 300 173.                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant states that, even though it does not consider
that its claim in Case T-46/98 has become devoid of                   The applicant in this case, an agricultural undertaking
purpose, it has had to bring the present action as a                  producing beet, contests Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 to
precautionary measure, in consequence of the position                 the extent to which, by treating Italy as a non-deficit area,
adopted by the Commission in the first case.                          within the meaning of the basic regulation applicable to
                                                                      the sugar sector, it fails to set a derived intervention price
                                                                      for white sugar for all areas of Italy. It adds that since the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                   establishment of the common organisation of the market
those advanced in Case T-46/98.                                       in sugar, Italy has always been regarded as a deficit area.
(1) Case T-46/98, OJ C 151, 16.5.1998, p. 11.
                                                                      In support of its claim, the applicant states, first, that
                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 is unlawful in that it
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
excludes Italy from the list of Community areas classified           Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Associazione
as being in deficit within the meaning of Regulation (EEC)           Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio Nazionale Bieticoltori
No 1785/81, or the basic regulation for the sugar sector. It         and Associazione Bieticoltori Italiani against Council of
is claimed that in the light of the rationale and the                                     the European Union
objectives of regionalisation, it must be concluded that a                                  (Case T-153/98)
particular area of the Community is to be regarded as in
deficit' if its requirements have to be covered by sugar                                     (98/C 358/40)
imports. The economic data for Italian sugar imports and
exports for recent years, including those for the period                             (Language of the case: Italian)
prior to the adoption of the contested measures, show a
long-standing prevalence of imports over exports. It
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
follows that, by withholding regionalisation for the 1998/
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
99 marketing year for all the beet-growing areas of Italy,
the contested measures are contrary to the objectives                1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio
                                                                     Nazionale Bieticoltori and Associazione Bieticoltori
pursued by the basic regulation and are liable to
                                                                     Italiani, represented by Massimo Moretto, Roberto
compromise the proper functioning of the common
market organisation in question.                                     Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice, Padua and
                                                                     Bari Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                     Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue des
                                                                     Nerviens.
The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of legal
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations.          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
In its view, there is no doubt that the function of the limit        should:
date of 1 August, the date on which the intervention price
for white sugar must be fixed, as required by Article 3(4)           Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, is to allow interested                    Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
parties, and primarily beet growers, to ascertain the                     fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
minimum price that they will be guaranteed for the                        intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
marketing year for which they are sowing. The applicant                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
also observes that the contested measures, although issued                beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
only at the end of June 1998, have an impact on the 1998/                 costs (OJ 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
1999 marketing year for which sowing was undertaken in                    necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
February or March of the same year and even, for                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
southern areas, in November and December 1997. The                        1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
applicant's position is therefore that it knows the price for             standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
the sale of beet covered by supply contracts already
concluded and that that price no longer coincides with the
derived price at a time when it cannot change its                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
production plans. Moreover, the contested regulation is                   Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
also inimical to the related principle of the protection of               of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
legitimate expectations as far as beet growers are                        applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
concerned since they legitimately relied on the thirty-year               an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
basis of the minimum guaranteed price for beet produced
in Italy.                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The contentions and principal arguments adduced in
                                                                     support are the same as those put forward in Case T-152/
As regards breach of the principle of non-discrimination,            98 Ponte S. Pietro v. Council'.
also alleged by the applicant, it is contended that, since
the pattern of imports and exports of sugar in certain
countries treated as being in deficit by the contested
measures and in Italy have remained substantially the
same for the marketing years from 1990 to 1997, it is
hard to see why, against that background, Italy is
excluded from the list of deficit areas for the 1998/1999            Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Asia Motor
marketing year.                                                      France and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                                         European Communities
                                                                                            (Case T-154/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 358/41)
The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to state
reasons.
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First