Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and 110 others against the Commission of the European Communities

    

    (Case T-285/03)

    Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 August 2003 by the company Agraz SA and 110 other companies, represented by J.-L. da Cruz Vilaça, R. Oliveira, M.-J. Melícias and D. Choussy, laywers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(order the defendant to pay each applicant company the balance of the production aid together with interest at a rate fixed by the Court of First Instance as from 12 July 2000 (or, in the alternative, as from 13 July 2000 or, further in the alternative, as from 16 July 2000) and until the actual day of payment;

(order the Commission to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The present application seeks recognition of the extra-contractual liability of the Community arising from the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used to calculate the amount of production aid for processed tomato products for the marketing year 2000/2001 under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July 2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products ¹.

Specifically, for the marketing year 2000/2001, the Commission took as its basis for calculating production aid the export prices of tomatoes from the United States, Israel and Turkey. It follows that the defendant did not take into account the export prices of China, although in 1999 it was the world's second largest producer of tomatoes. That basis for calculation significantly reduced production aid.

In support of their claims, the applicants argue that the conditions in the Bergadem case-law are fulfilled in the present case.

The applicants claim that that omission infringes the relevant basic regulation ², that the regulation confers rights on individuals and that the powers of the Commission when Regulation No 1519/2000 was adopted were extremely limited, consisting merely in identifying the reference countries for the purposes of calculating the amount of the aid.

Finally, the Commission infringed the principles of good adminstration and legitimate expectations by failing to make the effort needed to learn the Chinese prices and by refusing, once it was notified of those prices, to amend the regulation.

____________

¹ - (OJ L 174 of 13.7.2000, p. 29.

² - (OJ L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 29.