Action brought on 12 August 2011 - Charron Inox and Almet v Commission

(Case T-445/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Charron Inox (Marseille, France) and Almet (Satolas-et-Bonce, France) (represented by: P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

first, annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011;

in the alternative, acknowledge the fault of the Commission which did not provide for a sufficient period of time between the publication of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 and its entry into force, and award the following sums in damages to the applicant companies:

with regard to the damage caused:

for the company CHARRON: EUR 123 297.69;

for the company ALMET: EUR 384 210;

with regard to the indemnifiable loss of profit:

for the company CHARRON, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 78 051.76, or EUR 55 221.57;

for the company ALMET, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 69 059.18 or EUR 48 827.61 as at the current rate;

in the further alternative, acknowledge the no-fault liability of the Commission which did not provide for a sufficient period of time between the publication of Commission Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011 and its entry into force, and award the following sums in damages to the applicant companies:

with regard to the damage caused:

for the company CHARRON: EUR 123 297.69;

for the company ALMET: EUR 384 210;

with regard to the indemnifiable loss of profit:

for the company CHARRON, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 78 051.76, or EUR 55 221.57;

for the company ALMET, with regard to the contract concluded with the company SURAJ, the sum of USD 69 059.18 or EUR 48 827.61 as at the current rate;

in any case, order the European Commission to pay the costs and the sum of EUR 10 000 as a contribution to the applicant companies' defence costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

First plea, alleging serious inadequacies in the findings of the Commission before adoption of its decision such as to call into question the reliability of the facts established.

Second plea, alleging the failure to respect the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as the immediate entry into force of the contested regulation meant that the applicants could not adapt their practices.

____________