Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 20 November 2003 by Korn-OG Foderstof Kompagniet against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-380/03)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance on 20 November 2003 by Korn-OG Foderstof Kompagniet, of Viby (Denmark), represented by L. Harings and K. Landry, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.    order the defendant to pay to the applicant:

-    EUR 82 702.12

-    USD 10 394.00, together with interest at the rate of 5% above the applicable Danish minimum lending rate from 1 November 1999, or alternatively since the lodging of the application, and

-    USD 828.73;

2.    order the defendant, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant's claim for compensation from the Commission is brought under Article 238 EC and concerns a contract for the supply of rye for breadmaking to the Russian Federation. In addition, it makes a claim on account of delay.

The applicant's arguments are as follows:

It was awarded a contract for delivery of rye for breadmaking to the Russian Federation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 111/1999. It has suffered considerable damage due to the unwarranted delay in the acceptance of the delivery by the recipient country. The delay arose because the Russian Federation complained initially of defects in the goods delivered. However, after closer investigation by the Commission, no such defects were found. The applicant had to fund the sums paid to the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung in Deutschland (BLE, German Federal Institute for Agriculture and Food) for a period of approximately one year.

The Commission must accept liability for the recipient country's fault on contractual principles, since it used the recipient country for taking delivery. The delay is therefore within its sphere of responsibility. The Commission has in principle recognised the applicant's entitlement to compensation.

The basis of the applicant's claim in respect of delay is the wrongful declaration that the security deposited by the applicant was forfeit. The Commission fulfilled its obligations towards the applicant only after a year had elapsed. Admittedly, the applicant did not have direct contact in this regard with the Commission, but the national payments office, the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, acted in this respect merely as the payments office of the Commission.

____________