You are on page 1of 2

C 94/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.3.

98

Ð order, further, the defendants jointly to pay the costs. Luigi Pecetti, Nicola Maria Spadaccino, Giovanni Tria,
Vito Stefano Tria and Nicola Utzeri, represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Gregorio Leone, of the Milan Bar, and Mark Clough, of
the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
The applicants, all of which are companies whose Grand-Rue.
principal business is that of customs forwarding services,
carried on either by the partners of the company or by
customs agents employed by them, seek compensation for The applicants claim that the Court should:
what they claim to be the abrupt removal, with effect
from January 1993, of customs formalities for intra- Ð declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of
Community trade, and from 1 January 1995 in respect of the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for
the EFTA countries, the result of which was essentially the the damage caused to the applicant companies by the
closure of customs posts and the dismissal of customs repercussions on their activities as authorised customs
officials. agent as a result of the provisions adopted by the
Council when organising the free movement of goods
within the single market from 1 January 1993 without
The applicants observe that Article 8 a of the Treaty of
taking the measures necessary to protect the interests
Rome, introduced by the Single European Act, introduced
of the applicants, as well as for the fact that the
the concept of the internal market into Community law
Commission has not proposed, nor has the Council
and that as a result of the secondary legislation adopted in
adopted, the measures necessary for the legitimate
order to organise the free movement of goods according to
protection of the rights of the applicants,
the new guidelines, the intra-Community customs activity
was removed.
Ð order, moreover, the defendants jointly to pay the
costs.
The applicants point out, first, that the Commission failed
to propose, and the Council failed to adopt, transitional
measures which would have enabled those affected to Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
adapt gradually to the new situation and, secondly, that
the measures adopted by the Community bodies to The pleas-in-law and main arguments are identical with
overcome those difficulties were in no way compensatory those relied on in Case T-12/98 Argon srl and Others v.
in nature. Council and Commission.

The applicants further state that, in the context of the


Community legislative action which caused the damage,
the Community authorities disregarded the acquired rights
of the customs and forwarding agents as well as the
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and Action brought on 14 January 1998 by Centre d'Action
non-discrimination. Culturelle du Sart-Tilman asbl against the Commission of
the European Communities
In the alternative, the applicants, in claiming no-fault (Case T-15/98)
liability, also allege not only that the principle of equality (98/C 94/79)
in bearing public burdens has been breached but also that
the conduct of the Community bodies is tantamount to
(Language of the case: French)
depriving them of their acquired rights.

An action against the Commission of the European


Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 14 January
1998 by Centre d'Action Culturelle du Sart-Tilman asbl,
established in LieÁge (Belgium), represented by Bernadette
Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Carlo Chiappe and Graulich, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
Others against the Council of the European Union and the Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val
Commission of the European Communities Sainte-Croix.
(Case T-13/98)
(98/C 94/78) The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: Italian) Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant BEF
12 323 006,
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant interest at
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European the rate of 8 % on that amount as from 18 October
Communities on 9 January 1998 by Carlo Chiappe, Giulio 1990,
Comoglio, Sergio De Bona, Piero Luciano Galbiati,
Umberto Greco, Mario Malugani, Alessandro Michelucci, Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
28.3.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 94/33

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: and 87/0296/B2, of which it has been unlawfully deprived.

(1) Case C-199/91 Foyer Culturel du Sart-Tilman SARL v.


The applicant, a non-profit-making association governed Commission [1993] ECR I-2689.
by Belgian law, which has promoted a series of training (2) OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1.
projects, states that the Belgian State submitted to the
European Social Fund, in its own name and on behalf of
the applicant itself, several applications for assistance
which gave rise to Commission decisions approving them
in six files bearing the numbers 84/3643/B6, 85/0077/B4,
85/0186/B6, 86/0274/B2, 87/0295/B2 and 87/0296/B2, as Action brought on 16 January 1998 by Wirtschaftsver-
well as to the payment of advances. In December 1988 the einigung Stahl and Others against the Commission of the
Belgian authorities informed the Commission that the European Communities
applicant was being wound up and asked it to stop all (Case T-16/98)
payments and inform it of the sums not yet disbursed in
respect of the approved files. The decisions to reduce (98/C 94/80)
financial assistance finally taken by the Commission were
the subject of an action before the Court of Justice which, (Language of the case: German)
by judgment of 25 May 1993 (1), upheld in part the
applicant's claims. An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
The applicant claims that the Commission has still not 1998 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, of Düsseldorf, AG
adopted the measures to comply with that judgment and der Dillinger Hüttenwerke, of Dillingen/Saar, EKO Stahl
that failure to act has given rise to the damage allegedly GmbH, of Eisenhüttenstadt, Krupp Thyssen Nirosta
suffered by the applicant. GmbH, of Bochum, Thyssen Krupp Stahl GmbH, of
Duisburg, Preussag Stahl AG, of Salzgitter, Stahlwerke
Bremen GmbH, of Bremen, and Thyssen Stahl AG, of
In support of its claims it states in particular that: Duisburg, represented by Jochim Sedemund,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Rue.
Ð under the legislation applicable at the time when the
applications for assistance were submitted and
subsequently approved by the Commission, between The applicants claim that the Court should:
1984 and 1987, a promoter whose application for
assistance is approved by the Commission is entitled Ð annul Commission Decision 98/4/ECSC of 26
to payment of an advance and, following a further November 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
application accompanied by a detailed report certified Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case IV/36.069
by the Member State, to payment of the balance, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl),

Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.


Ð Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of
17 October 1983 on the implementation of Decision Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
83/516/EEC (2), provides for the circumstances in
which Fund assistance may be suspended, reduced or By the contested decision the Commission prohibited the
withdrawn and the amounts paid by way of an implementation of the information exchange agreement
advance refunded, notified by the applicants on 28 May 1996, on the ground
of infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (1).

Ð the right of a promoter whose applications have been The applicants submit that the Commission infringed the
approved and which received an advance to receive principle of legal certainty by conceptual and logical
the outstanding amount may not be removed other inconsistency in the interpretation of Article 65 (1) of the
than in observance of the prescribed procedures, and ECSC Treaty, a provision imposing a monetary penalty
whose interpretation is subject to the principle of
certainty. Second, the Commission breached the principles
Ð in particular the right must be inferred of a promoter of the burden of proof: according to the case-law, the
to a decision by the Commission on the application Commission is dispensed from the need to prove that
for payment of the balance submitted by the Member there has been an actual restriction of competition only if
State of which it has the nationality. the agreement is either intended to restrict competition or
else anti-competitive per se. There is no question of that,
however, in the case of the present market information
Finally, the applicant states that, in the absence of any system, since that is to be regarded from the point of view
proper investigation by the Fund regarding its claims, it of competition law as either neutral or even promoting
cannot but set its damage at the level of the amount of the competition. The contested decision does not even attempt
balance of the assistance in files 85/0186/B6, 87/0295/B2 to carry out a corresponding empirical examination.