You are on page 1of 1

C 135/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.5.

2000

Pleas in law and main arguments Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou
against the Council of the European Union

The applicant in the present case is a member of the Dole (Case T-60/00)
Group of companies which is a group of companies engaged
in the production, purchase, consignment and sale of green
third-country bananas to, and in, the European Community, (2000/C 135/46)
within the meaning of Article 3 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1442/93, of June 1993, laying down delay rules for
the application of the arrangements for importing bananas
into the Community (1). (Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was


brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
The application concerns the damage suffered by the applicant Communities on 20 March 2000 by Paraskevi Liaskou, resid-
through having to purchase export licences in the period from ing at Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
1995 to 1998 in order to enable its agents to exercise rights Bar.
to obtain import licences in order to sell bananas in the
Community. The applicant was entitled, through its agents, to
Category A banana import licences. The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 5 July 1999 of the appointing


Regulation No 478/95(2) made the purchase and presentation authority refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation
of an export licence from certain countries a precondition for allowance;
the issue of the EC import licence.
— annul the decision of 21 December 1999 by which the
appointing authority rejects the applicant’s complaint that
the contested decision should be annulled;
The European Court of Justice annulled Council Decision
94/800 (3) and the Commission Regulation No 478/95, to the
extent to which they discriminated between the different — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the expatriation
categories of operators set out in Council Regulation allowance as from 1 May 1999, minus, for the past, what
No 404/93 establishing the common organisation of the was granted to her by way of expatriation allowance;
market in bananas(4).
— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant submits that the discriminatory nature and the


illegality of the above mentioned measures have caused it Pleas in law and main arguments
substantial loss and damage and constitute a breach of a
superior rule of law for the protection of the applicant.
The applicant, an official of Greek nationality at the Council,
claims in particular that, contrary to the contested decision,
her principal residence, during the period of reference, was
(1) OJ L 142 of 25.6.1993, p. 62. Athens. Although she arrived in Belgium in 1987, her
(2) Regulation No 478/95, of 1 March 1995, on additional rules for residence in Brussels was only provisional and limited for the
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/95 as regards purposes of studying. The functions she exercised in the
the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the Schengen General Secretariat between 1993 and 1999 should
Community and amending (EEC) No. 1442/92 (OJ 1995 L 49, of not be taken into account in respect of occupation within an
4.3.1995, p. 13).
(3) Council Decision 94/800, of 22 December 1994, concerning the
international organisation referred to in the second indent of
conclusion on behalf of the Community, as regards matters Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
whithin its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
Round multilateral negociations (1986-1994) (OJ L 336, of
23.12.1994, p. 1). In taking the contested decision, the defendant committed a
(4) OJ L 471 of 25.2.1993, p. 1. breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular of the second
paragraph of Article 25 and Article 69 thereof, and of Annex
VII thereto.