CELEX: C2002/233/43
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2002 in Case T-197/01: Groupement d'intérêt de produits agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 — Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

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.