You are on page 1of 2

C 113/58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 1.5.


Action brought on 22 February 2010 — Regione Puglia v — the results arrived at by the Commission in respect of each
Commission priority and each measure, and in respect of each of the
checks carried out, are not confirmed or supported by the
(Case T-84/10) documents lodged and examined and, in some cases, those
results were obtained without the necessary consideration of
(2010/C 113/89) the legislation applicable to the sector;

Language of the case: Italian

Parties — in any event, as regards methodology, the evaluations

carried out are not suitable for confirming and corrob­
Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli,
orating the Commission’s conclusions, which, moreover,
lawyer, A. Aloia, lawyer)
appear presented as self-evident in so far as they are not
sufficiently reasoned and/or proved.

Defendant: European Commission

Nonetheless, the Commission took no account whatsoever of:

Form of order sought — the various results of the audits performed by the European
Court of Auditors and the Ministry for the Economy and
— Annul the contested decision. Finance of the Italian Republic;

— the observations and objections submitted from time to

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, including a fixed
time by the Regione Puglia in a detailed, substantiated and
amount for general costs.
timely manner, in response to the complaints and requests
made by the Commission; and, furthermore,

Pleas in law and main arguments — the Commission failed in its duty of cooperation which
By the present action, the Regione Puglia claims that the Court must inform the relationships between itself and the
should annul Decision No C(2009) 10350 of the European recipient of the funding, reaching decisions and making
Commission of 22 December 2009, concerning the cancellation findings before it had even received and examined the
of part of the contribution from the European Regional Devel­ responses and clarifications which it itself had sought
opment Fund (ERDF) allocated to the operational programme from the Regione Puglia.
POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006, and uphold only the
provision made in Article 4 of that decision.

In support of its claims, the Regione Puglia relies on precise

objections raised by it in relation to the accuracy and validity of Action brought on 17 February 2010 — British Sugar v
the complaints made against it by the Commission, and on the Commission
unlawfulness and erroneous nature of the methods used by the
Commission for evaluating the results of the audits carried out (Case T-86/10)
in 2007 and 2009.
(2010/C 113/90)

Language of the case: English

More specifically, the Regione Puglia submits that the decision Parties
was taken notwithstanding that:
Applicant: British Sugar plc (London, United Kingdom) (repre­
sented by: K. Lasok, QC, G. Facenna, Barrister, W. Robinson, P.
Doris and D. Das, Solicitors)

— the checks performed by the Commission and serving as a

basis for the decision were not carried out appropriately and
on time; Defendant: European Commission
1.5.2010 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/59

Form of order sought Third, the applicant argues that the Commission lacked
competence to adopt the contested measure under Regulation
— annul the contested measure; (EC) No 1260/2001 because, in the applicant’s opinion;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other

costs and expenses in relation to this matter. — that regulation had been repealed and was not in force at
the time the contested measure was adopted; and

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Regulation — the effect of the judgment in Jülich that the Commission
(EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regu­ had no competence to determine production levies in a
lations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No manner inconsistent with Article 15 of that regulation. In
1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production the absence of competence by reason of the judgments
levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, Jülich and SAFBA or Regulation No 1260/2001 competence
2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (1). to set production levies is held by the Council under what is
now Article 43 TFEU. Accordingly, the Commission had no
competence at all to adopt the contested measure.

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in

support of its claims.

(1) OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1

(2) Joined Cases C-5/06 and C-23/06 to C-36/06, Zuckerfabrik Jülich,
[2008] ECR I-3231
(3) Joined Cases C-175/07 to C-184/07 SAFBA, [2008] ECR I-142
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003
First, it submits that the Commission failed to adopt the fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03
measures necessary to comply with the Court’s judgments in marketing year, OJ 2003 L 254, p. 4
Jülich (2) and SAFBA (3) Cases by which the Court declared (5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004
invalid Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 1762/2003 (4), setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04
1775/2004 (5) and 1686/2005 (6). The applicant claims that, marketing year, OJ 2004 L 316, p. 64
(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005
as a result of the judgments in Jülich and SAFBA, the setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional
Commission was under an obligation and therefore had the levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year OJ 2005
competence to take the measures necessary to rectify the L 271, p. 12
illegality identified in those judgments. That obligation and
that competence were limited to adopting the measures
necessary to secure the restoration to the persons concerned
(including the applicant) of the amounts that they had been
unlawfully required to pay in the marketing years in question.
Those amounts were and are, in the applicant’s submission,
identifiable by applying the formula used in the regulations
held by the Court to be invalid subject to the correction of
the error identified by the Court. The applicant contends
therefore that in breach of that obligation, and acting outside
that competence, the Commission adopted the contested Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA
measure, which is vitiated by the same fundamental defect Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)
that led the Court of Justice to invalidate Regulations (EC)
Nos 1762/2003, 1775/2004 and 1686/2005. (Case T-88/10)

(2010/C 113/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Second, the applicant claims, that the method of calculating the
sugar levies that has been adopted in the contested measure is Applicant: Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (Delft, The Netherlands)
contrary to the Court’s conclusion in Jülich case. (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)