CELEX: C1995/101/25
Language: en
Date: 1995-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 7 February 1995 by 'Atlanta' Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-18/95)

22 . 4. 95            | EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 101 /9
           the period there specified, the applicant should be           — award him compensation of ECU 13 900 for damage
           wound-up by court order without having provided                    sustained .
           that balance.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
4.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                         The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission,
t 1 ) OJ No L 243 , 19 . 9 . 1994, p . 1 .                               dated 26 April 1994, by which the Commission rejected his
                                                                         application for a fellowship at the University of London, in
                                                                         the field of research and technological development, on the
                                                                         basis that, having both British and Greek nationality, he
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  would not satisfy the eligibility requirements, according to
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                which the applicant must be :
                       of 24 February 1995                               ( a ) a national of a Community Member State or an
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the                       associated State or a natural person resident in the
                     European Communities                                      Community; and
                             ( 95/C 101 /23
                                                                         ( b ) a national of a country other than that in which the
                  (Language of the case: French)                               laboratory is established and must not have carried out
                                                                               his/her normal activity in that country for more than
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   two years prior to the date of submission of the
           published in the European Court Reports)                            application.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels, an official of the                  The applicant has neither Greek nor British nationality, is a
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                      'British overseas citizen', and as such, belongs to a specific
Arlon, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure                 category of aliens who need both a residence and a work
and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             permit in order to live and work in the United Kingdom.
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 'British overseas citizens' are not treated as European Union
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European                      nationals in any Member State .
Communities (Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) — application for
suspension of the implementation of the decision of the
Commission of 18 January 1995 imposing on the applicant                  Consequently, the applicant fulfilled both the nationality
                                                                         and the mobility criteria of eligibility laid down in the
the disciplinary measure of removal from post — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                ' General Conditions Governing Research Training
24 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as                     Fellowships ', since he is a natural person not having the
follows :                                                                nationality of any EC Member State, resident in Greece,
                                                                         seeking to move to the United Kingdom and having never in
 1 , implementation of the decision of the Commission is                 his life carried out a normal activity in the United
      suspended until delivery of the final order in the                 Kingdom.
      proceedings for interim relief;
2 , the costs are reserved.
                                                                         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by 'Atlanta'
                                                                         Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH and
Action brought on 10 January 1995 by Frederick Farrugia                  Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co
    against the Commission of the European Communities                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-230/94 )                                                       (Case T-18/95 )
                               95/C 101 /24 )                                                     ( 95/C 101/25
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 1995                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 by Frederick Farrugia, represented by L. Sissilianos, of the            Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1995
Athens Bar, Kanari 4, Athens, Greece.                                    by 'Atlanta ' Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH of
                                                                         Bremen ( Federal Republic of Germany) and Internationale
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Frachtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co of Hamburg
                                                                          ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Erik A.
— annul the decision of the Commission to reject his                     Undritz and Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwàlte, with an address
      application for a research training fellowship on                  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden,
      eligibility grounds,                                               24 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 101 /10            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 4 . 95
The applicants claim that the Court should :                              Action brought on 14 February 1995 by SA Cimenteries
                                                                          CBR against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                  Communities
( 1 ) annul Commission Regulation (EC ) No 2791 /94 of
      16 November 1994 on the exceptional allocation of a                                       (Case T-25/95 )
      quantity additional to the tariff quota for imports of                                     ( 95/C 101/26 )
      bananas in 1994 as a result of tropical storm Debbie ( 1 )
      save for Article 1 ( 1 ) thereof;                                                  (Language of the case: French)
( 2 ) order the defendant to pay the costs .                              An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 14 February
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       1995 by SA Cimenteries CBR, the head office of which is in
                                                                          Brussels, represented by Michel Waelbroeck, Alexandre
                                                                          Vandencasteele and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar,
The applicants, two German companies importing bananas,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
contest the way in which the quantity additional to the tariff
                                                                          of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
quota for that product in 1994 has been allocated by
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2791/94 .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
That Regulation was enacted following the severe damage                   — annul Articles 1 , 4, 7, 8 , 9 and 10 of the Commission
caused by tropical storm Debbie on 10 September 1994 to                       Decision of 30 November 1994 relating to a procedure
the banana plantations in the Community regions of                            under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and
Martinique and Guadeloupe and in the ACP States of Saint                      33.322 — Cement), inasmuch as it is stated therein that
Lucia and Dominica . It is intended to avert the risk of a steep              CBR has participated in agreements or concerted
rise in prices in several Community regions which may result                  practices contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty and it
from that damage .                                                            has been fined in that regard,
The applicants maintain that there is no legal basis whatever             — in the alternative, annul or at least reduce the fines
for the introduction of the exceptional allocation scheme at                  imposed on the applicant in Articles 9 and 10 of the
issue . Whilst it is true that Article 16 ( 3 ) of Regulation (EEC )          Decision,
No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in
bananas constitutes a legal basis for an increase in the quotas           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
in question, regard should be had in that connection to the
allocation rules laid down in Article 19 ( 1 ) of that                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Regulation. Nor does Article 20 of Regulation ( EEC )
No 404/93 constitute a legal basis for the Regulation at                  The applicant pleads, first, procedural defects, inasmuch as
issue. First, the modification of the allocation rules does not           the contested decision :
involve an implementing provision within the meaning of
Article 20; and, second, that Article merely provides for a               — was taken without the applicant having been given
system for forecasting demand, in relation to which it refers,                access to the majority of the documents in the
as regards the procedure to be applied, to Article 27 of the                  Commission's file or to the findings of fact based on
basic Regulation. Lastly, Article 30 of the basic Regulation                  those documents which are contained in the Statement
is concerned merely with transitional measures to facilitate                  of Objections,
the adaptation of the former national market organizations
to the new common organization of the market;                             — is vitiated by the absence of a statement of reasons
consequently, the contested regulation cannot fall within its                 and/or by contradictory reasoning,
scope .
                                                                          — contains allegations against the applicant based on
                                                                              numerous documents prepared in various languages
Since Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 is thus incapable of                       without translations of those documents having been
constituting the legal basis for the regulation at issue,                     provided in the Statement of Objections, with the result
recourse must be had to Article 43 of the EC Treaty.                          that it was not until the Decision was adopted that
However, since that provision confers legislative powers                      the applicant was able to assess the precise significance
only on the Council, and since the subject-matter of the                      given to them, by means of translation, by the
Regulation at issue cannot be regarded as an implementing                     Commission,
measure, it has been enacted in breach of Article 43 , and also
of Articles 145 and 155 , of the Treaty.                                  — may be vitiated by a failure to comply with the
                                                                              procedural requirements for the adoption of decisions,
H OJ No L 296 , 17. 11 . 1994, p . 33 .                                       since the Commission acknowledges that it encountered
                                                                              a problem which warranted the renotification of the
                                                                              Decision but which it dealt with, without any
                                                                              explanation or justification whatever, at the stage of
                                                                              authentication of the Decision .