CELEX: C2000/135/48
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-62/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by the Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the Commission of the European Communities

13.5.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/27
Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Associazione Pro-                      In support of its claim, the applicant alleges that:
duttori Olivicoli Laziali — APOL — against Commission
                of the European Communities
                                                                          — by making the ‘objective finding’ that it never ‘carried on a
                                                                              significant economic activity’, the defendant has not taken
                         (Case T-61/00)                                       into account the fact that the situation was beyond the
                                                                              applicant’s control;
                        (2000/C 135/47)
                                                                          — Infringement and misapplication of Article 17(2)(b) of
                                                                              Regulation No 355/77, in particular, inasmuch as it may
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            be doubted whether it is correct to interpret that provision
                                                                              to mean that withdrawal of the national contribution,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     granted without any consultation with the other contribu-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    ting body, should automatically entail withdrawal of
European Communities on 20 March 2000 by Associazione                         Community funding.
Produttori Olivicoli Laziali — APOL, represented by Emilio
Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini, Fabio Lepri and Romano Vaccarel-
la, of the Rome Bar.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Commission Decision C(1999)4561 of 14 Decem-
     ber 1999 in accordance with the second paragraph of
     Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the
     second paragraph of Article 230 EC) and, in so far as
     necessary and appropriate, disapply all other measures
     flowing therefrom;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 March 2000 by the Associazione
                                                                          Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the Com-
                                                                                     mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present application has been brought against Commission                                        (Case T-62/00)
Decision C(1999)4561 of 14 December 1999 withdrawing
the financial contribution granted to the applicant, an associ-
ation of producers operating in Lazio, by Decision C(84)                                          (2000/C 135/48)
1100/293. The applicant observes that in March 1983 it
submitted to the Commission, through the offices of the Lazio
Regional authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, a duly                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
drawn up request seeking Community and national contri-
butions for the construction of a plant for the storing,
processing and marketing of olive oil, in accordance with                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
common measures to improve the conditions under which                     European Communities on 20 March 2000 by the Associa-
agricultural products are processed and marketed (1).                     zione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by
                                                                          Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini, Fabio Lepri and Romano
Once the plant had been constructed, however, the applicant               Vaccarella, of the Rome Bar.
soon found itself in difficulty with regard to running it within
the means it could afford, given the low take-up by its own
members of the marketing opportunities now open to them,                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
moreover, the market conditions had in the meantime changed
entirely. A modest level of activity was nevertheless achieved
periodically from the olive oil 1991-1992 marketing year.                 — annul Commission Decision C(1999) 4559 of 14 Decem-
Thus, in the summer of 1994, the applicant decided to seek a                  ber 1999 in accordance with Articles 173 of the EC Treaty
private partner.                                                              (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and Article 174
                                                                              of the EC Treaty (now Article 231 EC) and, in so far as is
                                                                              necessary and appropriate, disapply all other measures
Following certain difficulties with that partner, which led the               flowing therefrom;
applicant to bring the matter before the courts a receiver was
finally appointed. All of this was necessarily detrimental to the
applicant’s business activities.                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-63/00)
The present application has been brought against Commission
Decision C(1999) 4559 withdrawing the financial contribution
granted to the applicant, a national union of producers’                                          (2000/C 135/49)
associations in the sector, by Decision C(84) 500/213 of
29 June 1984. The financial contribution had been requested
pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 Februa-
ry 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions                                        (Language of the case: French)
under which agricultural products are processed and market-
ed (1), for the purpose of building three facilities for the storage,    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
processing and marketing of olive oil in the communes of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Castri (Lecce), Eboli (Salerno) and S. Lorenzo (Regio Calabria).         European Communities on 20 March 2000 by Lars Bo Ras-
                                                                         mussen, residing at Dalheim, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
                                                                         represented by Michel Karp, of the Luxembourg Bar.
The contested decision is based on three main heads of
complaint: the funded establishments failed to operate, the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
facilities were not built as planned, incorrect information was
provided concerning the existence, in the regions in question,
                                                                         — annul the decision of the Commission of 22 July 1999 not
of facilities for processing and storing olive oil of the same
                                                                              to grant to the applicant special leave of two and a half
type as those funded with the aid of the contribution.
                                                                              days from 11 March (afternoon) to 13 March 1998;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay to the applicant token damages
The pleas and principal arguments are the same as those made                  of one franc as compensation for the non-material damage
in Case T-61/00 APOL v Commission. In particular, it is                       suffered;
alleged that:
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— the Commission misunderstood the information provided
     by the applicant concerning the existence, in the regions
     in question, of facilities of the same type as those planned        Pleas in law and main arguments
     by the applicant;
                                                                         The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing authority
                                                                         to grant him two and a half days’ special leave in order to
— the Commission was wrong to conclude that certain plant                enable him to vote in the general elections which took place
     and works failed to conform to the applicant’s plans as             in Denmark in 1998.
     approved;
                                                                         It is stated in that respect that he was not able to submit
— the fact that operations fell behind schedule is directly              documentary evidence of his participation in the elections,
     attributable to the financial difficulties which beset the          since Danish legislation does not allow the polling station to
     applicant from 1989 onwards following a loss of more                certify the voter’s participation in the ballot. Consequently, he
     than LIT 3 500 000 000 it incurred when it was required             provided proof of his participation by means of a declaration
     to reimburse the value of produce it was storing which              on his honour.
     was stolen;
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
— the irregularities in the present case are only partial.
                                                                         — defective and inadequate statement of reasons on which
                                                                              the contested decision is based;
(1) OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1.                                                  — breach of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as,
                                                                              according to the solution adopted by the defendant, only
                                                                              officials who are nationals of a Member State which
                                                                              provides in its legislation for the issue of a certificate of
                                                                              voting can be entitled to the special leave at issue;