Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Société des Plantations de Mbanga 'SPM' against the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-128/05)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 March 2005 by Société des Plantations de Mbanga 'SPM', established at Douala (Cameroun), represented by Pierre Soler-Couteaux, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

order the Commission and the Council jointly and severally to pay compensation for the damage suffered in the amount of EUR 15 163 825 together with interest at the statutory rate;

order the Commission and the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant produces, processes, and markets bananas for export in the Republic of Cameroon and in other countries. In order to market its bananas within the Community, the applicant is required to obtain import licences from importer operators, because it is not an operator, for the purpose of the Community legislation, and it is not part of a European or multinational group.

The applicant claims that importer operators misuse the Community provisions governing the Community system of banana imports for their own benefit by reintroducing, by means of an excessive and disproportionate charge on import licences, duty on banana imports from ACP States normally subject to a zero duty.

The applicant submits that, by failing to take account of a very distinct category of economic operators in the banana sector, the 'independent' ACP producers, which are neither operators nor part of large European or multinational groups and, by failing to adopt the appropriate measures to remedy the consequences arising from that, although the Commission is bound to avoid disrupting normal commercial relations between persons at different levels of the commercial chain, the Council and the Commission have conducted themselves in such a manner as to incur non-contractual liability.

The applicant also pleads a manifest disregard for the limits of the discretion of the Council and the Commission, relying on five pleas alleging:

-    introduction of a law which favours anti-competitive practices;

-    absence of measures intended to counter those anti-competitive effects;

-    infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty;

-     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and

-    infringement of the principle of freedom to pursue a trade or profession.

The applicant further relies on an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the operators.

____________