Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
(Case T-279/11) 1
(Non-contractual liability — Agriculture — Sugar — Exceptional measures — Availability of supply on the EU market — 2010/11 marketing year — Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Sufficiently serious infringement — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: T & L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented initially by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Waelbroeck)
Interveners in support of the applicants: DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA (Coruche, Portugal) (represented by M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer), RAR — Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas, SA (Porto, Portugal) (represented by M. Mendes Pereira) and SFIR Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (Cesena, Italy) and SFIR Raffineria di Brindisi SpA (Cesena) (represented by P. Buccarelli and M. Todino, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by A. Demeneix, P. Rossi and N. Donnelly, and subsequently by P. Rossi and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)
Interveners in support of the defendant : French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by E. Sitbon and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents) and Comité européen des fabricants de sucre (CEFS) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by C. Pitschas, lawyer)
Re:
Action based on Article 268 TFEU for damages for the loss which the applicants allegedly suffered, first, as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 of 3 March 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/11 (OJ 2011 L 60, p. 6), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 293/2011 of 23 March 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy (OJ 2011 L 79, p. 8), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (OJ 2011 L 81, p. 8) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (OJ 2011 L 104, p. 39), and secondly, as a result of the Commission’s refusal to take the necessary measures to re-establish availability of supply in raw cane sugar.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
Dismisses the action;
Orders T & L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other, to bear their own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility which gave rise to the judgment of 6 June 2013, T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (T-279/11, EU:T:2013:299);
Orders T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, relating to the merits of the action;
Orders the French Republic and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs, including those relating to the plea of inadmissibility which gave rise to the judgment of 6 June 2013, T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (T-279/11, EU:T:2013:299);
Orders DAI Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA, RAR — Refinarias de Açùcar Reunidas, SA, SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, SFIR Raffineria di Brindisi SpA and the Comité européen des fabricants de sucre (CEFS) to bear their own costs.
____________1 OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.