Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

C 134/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.5.

2001

Action brought on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo Vieira y In support of its claims, the applicants claim:
Vieira Argentina, S.A. against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities — Erroneous legal basis, inasmuch as the Commission
claims that the legal basis for initiating a proceeding
for reduction is Regulation Council Regulation (EEC)
(Case T-44/01) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down pro-
visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
as regards coordination of the activities of the different
Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
(2001/C 134/56) ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
existing financial instruments. (1). On the contrary, the
applicants consider that that legal basis is not applicable
to joint companies set up under the EC/Argentina Agree-
(Language of the case: Spanish) ment. That error with respect to the legal basis also affects
the quantum by which the assistance may be reduced.

— Complete disregard by the Commission for the legal


An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
scheme applicable to joint fishing companies which it
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
proposed itself pursuant to the Fishing Agreement with
European Communities on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo
Argentina, so far as concerns both the erroneous appli-
Vieira y Vieira Argentina, S.A., whose registered office is in
cation of the general proceeding and the absence of a
Pontevedra (Spain), represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo
decision suspending the financial assistance.
and Mª Dolores Domı́nguez Pérez.

— Breach by the defendant of the duties of care and good


administration, as well as its obligation to act within a
The applicants claim that the Court should: reasonable time.

— order the Commission to compensate the applicants for — Breach of the rights of the defence of one of the
the damage caused to them by delayed payment of part applicants, inasmuch as Vieira Argentina SA was never
of the aid; notified by the Commission of its intention to reduce the
assistance, much less to suspend it for the duration of the
proceedings.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action was brought by two undertakings owners


of fishing vessels to which, in the context of the Fishing
Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Repub-
lic, the Community granted in 1995 a subsidy for the export
to Argentina of a vessel flying a Community flag to a Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
joint Community-Argentinian company. In this regard the Others against the Commission of the European Com-
applicants claim that, more than 5 years after the joint munities
company was set up, the defendant institution not only has
not paid the remaining balance of the assistance, amounting
to EUR 432 846,28, it even seeks to recover the part of the (Case T-45/01)
amount paid by the beneficiaries.
(2001/C 134/57)

The purpose of the present application is precisely to seek


from the Commission compensation for the damage caused to (Language of the case: English)
the applicants by delaying payment of the outstanding balance
of the assistance. Furthermore, the Commission never deemed
it necessary to suspend the assistance, so that it has never An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
notified beneficiaries formally that the assistance had been ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
suspended. The defendant has in fact initiated a proceeding European Communities on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
seeking to reduce the amount, the outcome being suspension Others, represented by Ian Hutton, of Monckton Chambers,
of payment of the balance of the assistance. London (U.K.).
5.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 134/27

The applicants claim that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision dated 14 November


2000; — annul the decision of the Commission, notified by letter
of 8 December 2000 AGR No 030905, which arrived on
— order the Commission to compensate the applicants for 21 December 2000, signed by Director-General for
the loss of earnings, pension, benefits and privileges Agriculture J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez, pursuant to Articles 230
occasioned to them by breaches of Community law; and 231 of the EC Treaty;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.


— and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 of
Pleas in law and main arguments the EC Treaty;

The action is brought against a decision of the Join European


Torus (JET) Appointing Authority declining a request for — in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensation made by the applicants for losses resulting from
the Commission’s method of engaging them to work on the
JET project without recruiting them to temporary Commission
posts.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that, in so doing, the Commission:

— was in breach of the fundamental principle of non-


discrimination in that in several respects the applicants The applicant companies have for many years marketed third-
were materially disadvantaged, to a significant extent, country bananas. In 2000, like 1999, they were allocated a
compared to those in temporary Commission posts; and reference quantity established by reference to the average
quantity of bananas imported from third countries in the
three-year period 1994/1995/1996, and so they regularly
— was in breach of, or alternatively ultra vires, the Statutes
submitted, during 2000, applications for quarterly licences to
governing the JET Project, prior to the amendment of the
import bananas from third countries. For the fourth quarter of
Statutes which took effect on 21 October 1998; in so
2000, the applicants submitted applications for import licences
far as the said amendment purported to preclude the
in respect of the quantities left over from the yearly quantity
Commission from recruiting the applicants to temporary
allocated to them, indicating as origins for the product they
posts, the amendment was to the extent unlawful and
sought to import one or more third countries.
invalid.

Under Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98


of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
regarding imports of bananas into the Community (1), the
applicants could have submitted applications for licences for
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl the fourth quarter of 2000, but only in respect of the
and Others against the Commission of the European traditional ACP countries, for which there were still
Communities 329 787,675 tonnes, the other sources having by now been
completely exhausted. Since in 1999 they had requested and
obtained import licences for ACP countries up to their
(Case T-46/01) reference quantity, but had not been able to use them because
it had been impossible to find bananas from those origins in
(2001/C 134/58) 2000, they renounced their use of the licence in order not to
risk losing the security lodged, as had happened the previous
year.
(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- The applicants therefore requested the Commission to issue
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the them import licences in respect of third-country bananas for a
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl reduced amount, even if the quota was exhausted, or to
and others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and Gabrie- compensate them for the losses suffered as a result of their not
le Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in being able to use up the whole of their respective reference
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, rue Mathias quantities. The defendant’s refusal in this regard is at the heart
Hardt. of the present proceedings.