Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet SA against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-177/02)

    (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 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet SA, established in Cavaillon (France), represented by Béatrice Favarel-Veidig, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(order the Commission to pay the following amounts to Malagutti-Vezinhet:

(the sum of FRF 222 540.00 (EUR 33 926.00) as compensation for loss incurred by that company;

(the sum of FRF 1 943 413.56 (EUR 296 271.48) as compensation for loss of profits in the British market;

if the Court of First Instance considers the claim for loss of profits to be insufficiently proven, it is requested to award the applicant the aforementioned sum in respect of the loss of a chance to retain its previously established levels of business;

(the sum of FRF 2 013 455.16 (EUR 306 949.26) as compensation for harm caused to the company's reputation with European and, in particular, British distributors.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant exports fruit and vegetables into, inter alia, the English market. In September 2001, the Icelandic health authorities informed the Commission of the existence of pesticide residues in excess of the prescribed maximum level. On the basis of that information, the Commission sent a notification, in the framework of the rapid alert system, concerning dicofol residues in apples from France via the Netherlands. In a second notification, and subsequent notifications, the applicant was expressly named as the exporter.

The applicant claims that, by taking that action, the Commission acted wrongfully, thereby causing the applicant to suffer damage.

The applicant considers that the Commission acted wrongfully in so far as it failed to observe the procedure laid down in Directive 92/59. ¹ In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission did not establish that the apples tested had originated from the applicant. In addition, there was no serious and immediate risk. The applicant states that the checks carried out established only that there was an impermissible level of dicofol. The applicant also claims that, by failing to consult the parties concerned as quickly as possible, the Commission acted in breach of Article 7(2) of Directive 92/59.

The damage suffered by the applicant consists of loss sustained in the English market, loss of profit, and harm to its reputation. The applicant states that in the preceding year it had worked hard to break into the English market and build up a reputation. Its efforts have now been rendered useless.

The damage was evidently caused by the Commission's wrongful conduct since, following the notifications under the rapid alert system, the applicant's sales in the English market were brought to an end.

____________

¹ - (Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 24).