CELEX: C2002/233/44
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-177/02: Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet SA against the Commission of the European Communities

28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/23
of the European Communities (Agents: N. Niejahr, K. Fitch                   Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet
and B. Wägenbaur) — application for partial annulment of                    SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2001 of 11 May 2001
concerning the authorisation of new additive uses, new
additive preparations, the prolongation of provisional author-                                        (Case T-177/02)
isations and the ten year authorisation of an additive in
feedingstuffs (OJ 2001 L 130, p. 25) — the Court of First
                                                                                                      (2002/C 233/44)
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 June 2002, the operative part of which                                            (Language of the case: French)
provides as follows:
1.    There is no need to rule in the present action.
2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-
( 1) OJ 2001 C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                           Vezinhet SA, established in Cavaillon (France), represented by
                                                                            Béatrice Favarel-Veidig, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the following amounts to
                          of 19 June 2002                                         Malagutti-Vezinhet:
in Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits                                —     the sum of FRF 222 540,00 (EUR 33 926,00) as
agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the                                  compensation for loss incurred by that company;
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                  —     the sum of FRF 1 943 413,56 (EUR 296 271,48) as
(Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001                                    compensation for loss of profits in the British
— Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest                                      market; if the Court of First Instance considers the
                           inadmissibility)                                             claim for loss of profits to be insufficiently proven,
                                                                                        it is requested to award the applicant the aforemen-
                          (2002/C 233/43)                                               tioned sum in respect of the loss of a chance to
                                                                                        retain its previously established levels of business;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                  —     the sum of FRF 2 013 455,16 (EUR 306 949,26) as
                                                                                        compensation for harm caused to the company’s
In Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits agricoles                            reputation with European and, in particular, British
de la Martinique (GIPAM), whose registered office is at Ducos                           distributors.
(France), represented by A. Lorang, P. Leroyer Gravet and
H. Mazingue, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Bordes and L. Visaggio) — application for annul-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation
(EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing                   The applicant exports fruit and vegetables into, inter alia, the
bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6) — the                      English market. In September 2001, the Icelandic health
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                        authorities informed the Commission of the existence of
J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,               pesticide residues in excess of the prescribed maximum level.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 June 2002,
                                                                            On the basis of that information, the Commission sent a
in which it:                                                                notification, in the framework of the rapid alert system,
                                                                            concerning dicofol residues in apples from France via the
1.    dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                 Netherlands. In a second notification, and subsequent notifi-
                                                                            cations, the applicant was expressly named as the exporter.
2.    orders the applicant to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.                                                The applicant claims that, by taking that action, the Com-
                                                                            mission acted wrongfully, thereby causing the applicant to
                                                                            suffer damage.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.9.2002
The applicant considers that the Commission acted wrongfully                —     annul Mr Neil Kinnock’s letter of 22 November 2001
in so far as it failed to observe the procedure laid down in                      addressed to the presidents of all the trade unions
Directive 92/59. (1) In that regard, the applicant submits that                   informing them of his decision to ask the Commission to
the Commission did not establish that the apples tested had                       terminate the 1974 framework agreement on 5 December
originated from the applicant. In addition, there was no serious                  2001;
and immediate risk. The applicant states that the checks carried
out established only that there was an impermissible level of
dicofol. The applicant also claims that, by failing to consult
the parties concerned as quickly as possible, the Commission                —     annul Mr Erik Halskov’s decision No 47623 of 6 Decem-
acted in breach of Article 7(2) of Directive 92/59.                               ber 2001 refusing to grant the applicant leave to attend,
                                                                                  on a mission basis, the meeting of 7 December 2001 on
                                                                                  the ‘Comprehensive Package of Proposed Amendments
                                                                                  to the Statute’;
The damage suffered by the applicant consists of loss sustained
in the English market, loss of profit, and harm to its reputation.
The applicant states that in the preceding year it had worked
hard to break into the English market and build up a                        —     rule on costs, expenses and fees and order the European
reputation. Its efforts have now been rendered useless. The                       Commission to pay them.
damage was evidently caused by the Commission’s wrongful
conduct since, following the notifications under the rapid alert
system, the applicant’s sales in the English market were
brought to an end.
( 1) Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product
     safety (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24).                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            By the present action, the applicant is contesting, in particular,
                                                                            the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2001 whereby,
                                                                            according to the applicant and in so far as the A&D (Action &
                                                                            Défense) trade union is deprived of all or some of its
Action brought on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                           rights arising from its adhesion to the framework agreement
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       governing relations between the Commission and trade
                                                                            unions/staff organisations, in particular recognition of its
                                                                            representativity, participation in meetings at all levels and the
                           (Case T-191/02)                                  distribution of resources:
                           (2002/C 233/45)
                                                                            —     the agreement on relations between the Commission and
                                                                                  trade unions/staff organisations of 20 September 1974 is
                     (Language of the case: French)                               terminated with effect from 5 December 2001;
                                                                            —     the Operational Rules on levels of consultation, the
                                                                                  consultation body and related procedures (SEC (2000)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         2086/3) agreed between the Commission and the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        majority of the trade unions/staff organisations on 19 Jan-
European Communities on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,                          uary 2000 are re-adopted;
residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                            —     the agreement of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       made available to the Central Committee and local staff
                                                                                  committees and the trade unions/staff organisations
                                                                                  (SEC(2001)955/5) is ratified;
—      annul the decision of the College of Commissioners of
       5 December 2001 by which the agreement of 20 Septem-
       ber 1974 on relations between the Commission and trade
       unions/staff organisations is terminated with effect from            —     the provisions on strikes laid down in Annex 1 to the
       5 December 2001;                                                           1974 framework agreement are ratified;